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

[Amanuensis he/him]

Yes, I was online. It was 5:30 AM, my phone had just woken me up from a facebook chat, and I decided to check the site briefly before going back to sleep. I occasionally do that when it's the middle of the night. It takes something rather large to get me to actually bring out my laptop and post though. I didn't view calling me out like that as being large enough to sacrifice my sleep. Sorry, not sorry.

 

Given how often I change time zones and that I don't know you well enough to know yours, it's easy for me to lose track of when a player is usually active. Add that to the fact that I saw you viewing, I assumed it was because you were available to speak. I try to make a habit of not reading the thread when I can't talk as that always seems suspect to me and extended that practice to you, so sorry about that. Either way it was not my intention to get you to sacrifice your sleep.

 

I don't really have much to say about either of yours or Kipper's posts, because I know my alignment and I'm perfectly willing to submit to a kandra scan. You mentioned my deviousness and manipulation though, concerning Maill's role and giving it to Stink. I don't have as much time to devote to this game as I usually do. I've mentioned this in part already, both in thread and in some PMs, but I've got car insurance issues I'm dealing with concerning an accident I got in almost a month ago that hasn't been sorted out yet. On top of that, I'm also working on some health/medical things with my thyroid and my back. Most of my free time comes on the weekend, and I try to make as much of that as I can. Subtracting sleep, I had about 12 hours to PM people freely after I got off work at 5 PM on Friday. I nearly forgot about giving Stink Maill's name (which is why there was a 2 hour gap between my PM to Maill and my PM to Stink). When I remembered, I wasn't trying to do anything malicious. I was telling Stink Maill's name and the reason that I believed that Maill could be trusted with a stamp. Yes, I'd had minor suspicions of Stink before I told him this, but I knew there was a good chance that that was paranoia. Yes, he had opportunity to be evil, but there wasn't really anything incriminating beyond that. When it comes to these games, I have no problem sharing my reasoning, even with people that I suspect, particularly if it's tying them down into doing something specific. If something gets messed up, that gives me information and a lead. Now, do I usually give roles? No. I don't. Not sensitive roles like a Hemalurgist. But at that point in time, I wasn't thinking about what my reasoning for trusting Maill would tell Stink. I was reasoning about why Maill would be a good person to give a stamp to and why I didn't think he was a traitor trying to get a role. Simple as that. It wasn't until Stink asked if Maill was a Hemalurgist that I realized what I'd done. Even then, I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. When he reacted the way he did.....not so much.

 

I understand that events in real life can have significant effects on how a player behaves in a game. However, since information like this is not relevant to the game itself, I think in the future it would be better if anyone whose going through a situation like this, they should keep the specifics to themselves and simply say, in blue text, I got things going on in real life that have impacted by ability to play, then explain only what's relevant to the game / discussion. Otherwise I find myself having to analyze this as "is she being genuine or using true events in her life to cover up for something she did while appealing for empathy?" I don't like that I have to consider that. As for Stink reacting the way he did, I highly doubt that he would share his excitement with anyone but the traitors in his doc if he were evil. I believe he would be smart enough to keep that to himself knowing full well that they're about to kill that person and it could be used as evidence against him.

 

I still think something is off with Stink, but I'm not certain about that at all. I am certain about what he said versus what I said and that there are discrepancies there. I think those discrepancies warrant more looking into, but if you guys want to look past those and trust him, fine.  Stink.

 

I can't remember when, where or who said it, but I remember someone recently made a comment that said something along the lines that once Wilson decides a person is evil then she will not back down, so its best not to get on her bad side. Even if it wasn't you specifically, this retraction comes off suspicious to me. As for these discrepancies, can you please point out what you are referring to for people who may have missed it or had them go over their head. I am not willing to look past any information, let alone advocate that we do.

 

I do not agree with calling for a no lynch today, because it's under threat of lynch and death that we learn things. Yes, we can discuss during the day and during PMs and all of that and we can rely on the kandra scans to solve the mystery for us, but where's the fun in that? Relying on the kandra is a follow the cop strategy, and those are lame. I would rather be killed right now in this lynch than spend the rest of the game following around after the kandra. "Oh, this person is evil!" says Adavantos. "Let's kill them!" And everyone blindly follows suit. That's no fun.

 

I'm not saying we rely on the Kandra to solve the mystery. I am saying that before we condemn a potential ally to death we verify that they are actually evil. Any of the leads we currently have stems entirely from player interactions. The only difference between waiting a cycle to scan someone before killing them is making sure we don't make a critical mistake. Especially if it turns out that Stink is the only loyalist Forger than we would been handing them guaranteed forges the rest of the game. Either way, the players as a collective still do all the leg work involved in solving the mystery and deciding who might be evil. What I'm suggesting is the same thing, it just has an extra step and is dramatically more efficient. Whether we as a whole want to play it that way is for us to decide. All I'm doing is making a logical suggestion, not ordering people to do as I say. I apologize if anyone thinks I have come off that way this game.

 

But since people don't want to go for Stink, I'm willing to look elsewhere. Ripple. You seem a little too certain about me. You're also reading a little over-much into my words to try to twist them to come back on me. I wasn't confident in Stink's role. I admitted that he hadn't fully claimed Forger, so I knew there was a small chance that he wasn't when I first mentioned him being a Forger. I acknowledged this. My questions to him were to figure out the reasons for the discrepancies I had noted. That post was willing to accept that he was being honest about being in contact with a Forger, but since his being in contact with a Forger contradicted something else he'd said, I was trying to sort out what was truth from what was lie.

 

Yet you're saying that I'm "confident concerning [his] role". Why? Perhaps because you want to make people think that I know more than I do? That I'm "confident" about more than I should be? I wasn't any more certain than I should've been based on the way that Stink had acted in my PM with him, and I made that very clear. All of the information from my PM with Stink is here, in the thread. My reason for believing he was Forger, my reason for telling him about Maill. All of it. I made logical assumptions with the information I had. Those were partly wrong, but I still think it was logical.

 

You also reinforce the idea that the Surgebinder's purpose was reverse psychology. If I were a traitor, I'd have no reason to use reverse psychology like that. In fact, I would avoid having my name mentioned in that kind of a note, since it just throws me back into the spotlight--somewhere that I don't particularly like being when I'm evil. I much prefer the sidelines and one-on-one communication. I was already suspected due to the Shallan-lynch and while a note like that could reduce suspicion on me, that gets into the realm of I Know You Knows, and I avoid those like the plague. I would not do that. Go ahead and spin your paranoid webs saying that "well, that's precisely the reason why she would," but the fact remains that I would not and did not. So someone who already seems so certain about me pushing the idea that I did makes me even more wary. Why would you be suggesting that, unless it's part of the plan to get me lynched?

 

There's a few ways I can take this vote and the following three paragraphs.

1. I am right about you being a traitor and you're trying to deflect suspicion to another innocent.

2. I am right about you being a traitor and you're placing a vote on an ally just in case you end up dying to soft clear them.

3. I am wrong about you being a traitor and you're placing a vote on a player to genuinely think might be another traitor.

Given the tone of your post, and the fact that in my mind you're doing the same thing to my words that you're accusing Ripple of doing to yours, I am leaning towards the direction of the first two. But of course I'm biased because I would love to be right about catching a traitor Wilson on D2. So I would like to hear every other player's thoughts on this.

 

I will have to do some analyzing of Ripple on my own before I weigh in on anything you've said beyond that, however.

 

Patience, young one. It's a virtue.

 

It is indeed. Difficult to be patient in a game with time limits and a potential Loyal Forger's life on the line, however.

 

 

 

EDITED OUT GRAMMAR AND SPELLING ERRORS

Edited November 8, 2015 by Adavantos

[Orlok Tsubodai he/him]

Did anyone have a PM conversation during the night cycle with Wilson that she opened?

[little wilson she/her]

I understand that events in real life can have significant effects on how a player behaves in a game. However, since information like this is not relevant to the game itself, I think in the future it would be better if anyone whose going through a situation like this, they should keep the specifics to themselves and simply say, in blue text, I got things going on in real life that have impacted by ability to play, then explain only what's relevant to the game / discussion. Otherwise I find myself having to analyze this as "is she being genuine or using true events in her life to cover up for something she did while appealing for empathy?" I don't like that I have to consider that. 

 

See, usually, I do that too, because I don't like getting into specifics in the thread. But it seems that people are really listening to me when I say that real life is busy and I can't devote as much time to this game as I have to past games. Your aggression and demanding a response from me right then is clear proof of that. I've tried to keep details out, but if people aren't actually going to listen to the vague stuff about car insurance and medical/health things, then, yes. I'm going to get more specific. And you can wonder if I'm trying to appeal to empathy, but I'm not. I'm simply being truthful. My time is severely limited and this is why. As for why it was relevant right then, well that's because good deception and manipulation takes time, as any good deceiver and manipulator knows. I do not have the time for that. You said that you had heard about my great deviousness and manipulation skills. Most times, that's accurate. Most times, I have far more time at my disposal. Right now, I do not. As I have said since the game started.

 

 

I can't remember when, where or who said it, but I remember someone recently made a comment that said something along the lines that once Wilson decides a person is evil then she will not back down, so its best not to get on her bad side. Even if it wasn't you specifically, this retraction comes off suspicious to me. As for these discrepancies, can you please point out what you are referring to for people who may have missed it or had them go over their head. I am not willing to look past any information, let alone advocate that we do.

 

One, don't believe everything you hear. My reputation is greatly exaggerated, and is usually boosted by those who know that it's greatly exaggerated. Two, this situation with Stink is not the same. Usually, I have far more information at my disposal and am able to better ascertain the guilt/innocence of someone. I have no information outside of my PM with Stink on this. I have never said that I was certain that Stink was a Traitor. I said that I believed he could be. I think he is. Granted, I've been known to stay gunning for someone when I just think that a person is evil. This is when I am the person with pretty much all of the information. Or one of those people. I am not in that position right now. That's you. If you're saying you want to back off Stink, and Kipper is agreeing that Stink probably isn't evil, then I'm willing to retract my vote in favor of the people who have more information. Note that I did not say that I was going to forget about Stink. I'm still going to watch him, because I still don't trust him.

 

As for the discrepancies, he implied to me that no one had told him their role. This comment was made directly after I confirmed his guess about Maill. He basically say "Yay, someone finally told me a role and it's not even theirs." Nowhere in that statement is there even an indication that someone had roleclaimed to him prior. Yet he is saying he had a roleclaim in the first 24 hours of the game. This seems like some pretty severe backpedaling to me. Now, I'm not saying that he should've said in my PM that he'd had a Forger roleclaim to him. I'm the one who took his statements as him being a Forger, so that's on me. I'm saying that his comment in his show of joy is contradictory to what he's claiming is true now. Either he was lying when he was joyous (which is a somewhat difficult time to really lie, if it's genuine), or he's made up a Forger to cover himself.

 

There's a few ways I can take this vote and the following three paragraphs.

1. I am right about you being a traitor and you're trying to deflect suspicion to another innocent.

2. I am right about you being a traitor and you're placing a vote on an ally just in case you end up dying to soft clear them.

3. I am wrong about you being a traitor and you're placing a vote on a player to genuinely think might be another traitor.

Given the tone of your post, and the fact that in my mind you're doing the same thing to my words that you're accusing Ripple of doing to yours, I am leaning towards the direction of the first two. But of course I'm biased because I would love to be right about catching a traitor Wilson on D2. So I would like to hear every other player's thoughts on this.

 

I'm confused about where I twisted your words to make you sound more certain than you were. And yes, I'm sure a lot of people would love to catch a Traitor Wilson on D2. 

 

 

It is indeed. Difficult to be patient in a game with time limits and a potential Loyal Forger on our side, however.

 

Difficult, but not impossible. Demanding someone respond to you is an act of so complete aggression that it immediately raises a person's hackles. Not to mention that it sucks the fun right of a game. My time is not yours to demand. It is mine. Request next time.

[Amanuensis he/him]

I'll admit that demand was a really poor choice in wording. Usually I am very conscious when it comes to the tone of my posts and that was a slip. I try very hard to keep how I have to behave at work and how I want to behave during leisure separate, but sometimes the Marine side of me leaks out. I'll make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

Also, Wilson.

Edited November 8, 2015 by Adavantos

[Elithanathile he/him]

Hey there guys. I apologize,I was really busy with school yesterday, and totally missed the cycle ending. And then I don't usually part much on Sundays, so I'm not trying to fly under the radar.

My apologies Adavantos

I do trust STINK though. I mentioned in the night phase that he'd sent me some PMs, and I talked to him quite a bit with those. I don't think he is a traitor, or at least that's the feeling I get from him, but if I had to say, I wouldn't really be able to pin down an exact reason why.

This'll probably be all I'll be posting for today, but I'll try and keep up to date on the thread.

[Kipper he/him]

A few words:

 

Orlok, it's interesting that you would bring that up. To the best of my knowledge, Wilson did NOT start any PMs herself. The reasoning that she provided, was, of course, the RL stuff that she has going on.

 

Deathclutch, I'm glad you consider my post amusing. I'm truly glad that I was able to bring a spark of good humor into your life. I agree that some of it was indeed comical, but if you cut out all the useless asides, I think that there are some useful ideas in there. I also want to caution you against addressing people as "Traitors." We all want to be as open-minded as possible, and the act of writing something down rather cements it in one's brain, so the more you say, "Okay Traitor. That was an excellently-crafted post to not be suspicious," or some such thing, the more you believe that person is a Traitor, regardless of other information to the contrary. (Note that Salty!Kipper is speaking here) 'S called "confirmation bias."

 

My updated thoughts on Mailliw's death: I'm growing more and more suspicious that the evil one in this case is, in fact, Wilson, with a possibility of it being STINK. Based on that assumption, I will retract my vote and place a new one on Wilson. Most of my case file is found in my earlier post, but if anyone has specific questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. Will be online for about another hour, then I have to go to a play practice.

 

Wilson: I want to be clear that this vote is NOT based on distrusting your RL things. You've mentioned these to me several times in other places, so I believe. This is also not because I have a burning desire to lynch you. It's just a number of small things that have piled up, and have made me suspicious. I could be misinterpreting the data, sure, but it's not because of your rep or anything. I'm being VERY strict with myself about confirmation bias here, and I genuinely do suspect you.

 

I have quite a few other suspicions, but they're mostly based on vibes from PMs, and I know how much you guys like vibes...>.<

 

Again, if anyone has questions, please say so.

 

Edit: I'm about to go through and list some people who gave a bad vibe to me based off of the Cycle so far.

 

Edit2: Araris was one standout to me because of how he's advocating we don't lynch anyone, and generally posting statements without pointing out suspicions. We definitely do need to lynch someone today, imo. Why would we not?

Paranoid King was the other (not just because he voted for me). He's basically lying, because I never asked him for information. 

Edited November 8, 2015 by Kipper

[Amanuensis he/him]

I'm about to go to bed (just in time for everyone to start arriving). I ask that everyone, whether or not you were involved in any of this, to please post your thoughts of what's happened the past two days. I understand if you might be apprehensive about voicing your opinion because you have no interactions with any of the players in question, but every single players perspective matters to me and should be heard. Being silent only serves to benefit the traitors, as then we can't catch them in their lies if they're quiet and they have a much larger pool of lurkers to hide among. With that being said, here's the most up to date vote tally.

 

Stink (1): Kipper (1), Creccio (1), Wilson (1)

Kaid (0): Kasimir (1)

Wilson (2): Ripple (1), Adavantos (1), Kipper (2)

Kipper (1): Paranoid King (1)

Araris (1): Kasimir (2)

Creccio (1): Bort (1)

Ripple (1): Wilson (1)

 

I still do not agree with killing someone without verification. I will have to review all of my PMs but I'm pretty sure I have no idea what role Wilson is, which concerns me because if she is indeed a loyalist then we might be losing yet another essential asset. Call me paranoid, but after lynching a Kandra D1 I want to be careful. There's no need for us to be hasty.

[Kipper he/him]

 

 

 

I still do not agree with killing someone without verification. I will have to review all of my PMs but I'm pretty sure I have no idea what role Wilson is, which concerns me because if she is indeed a loyalist then we might be losing yet another essential asset. Call me paranoid, but after lynching a Kandra D1 I want to be careful. There's no need for us to be hasty.

 

I'm fairly certain I know her role, and it will not be a catastrophic loss to the village to lose it.

[Amanuensis he/him]

I'm fairly certain I know her role, and it will not be a catastrophic loss to the village to lose it.

 

Lying down now but I just wanted to say that I really wish you didn't say that. If she is loyal and lives to see tonight that's one less dangerous player the traitors have to consider killing to hit another role of use.

 

Anyway, goodnight.

[Orlok Tsubodai he/him]

Adavantos, is there not an inherent contradiction between your two posts?

Post 1) I don't want to risk lynching a player whose role I don't know

Post 2) It was a mistake to tell us her role

Wilson is a player who could well be lynched - and for good reason - not risking lynching a fairly suspicious player because we don't want to know her role or risk losing it seems like a mistake.

I have a post I should get out tonight, and would like to apologise for not being as active as normal - I have had an incredibly busy last few days.

[queensteph she/her]

I have my reasons and while it started as gut at the beginning of the night turn, it solidified with more that I learned. I have fairly compelling evidence that I can trust Kipper, but it's not the kind of thing I'm going to put here. When this happened, he was the logical choice for me to go to since out of the people that I trust, he was the one who will actually discuss and try to work things out. Kas just tells me "No! Don't give me information! I don't need to know that!"

Could you PM me the next Night cycle to discuss why you trust Kipper? I am trying to find someone I know I can trust and any information you can give me to link me to someone that is pretty positively loyal would be great.

 

I thought he was pretty convincing, and I don't 'revel' in unpredictability, it's more like I don't want everyone to be able to read me, which everyone is saying is evil but I've done that in all my games.

Could you elaborate on how "he was pretty convincing" ? To me the fact that you were "joyous" upon receiving information doesn't strike me as suspicious because I would be happy about it too, whether I expressed it or not, but the reason that you are suspicious to me is the way you keep alluding the question of how/when the acclaimed forger exposed himself to you. It's not like you giving the information puts him/her in danger because we aren't asking who it was.

 

Having a Kandra scan Wilson seems like a good idea, except for the fact that that may draw the Eliminator kill to her if she's good. Maybe an Elantrian could protect her this upcoming night cycle as well as the Kandra scanning her. If she's going to get confirmed(as close as possible anyways), then I would rather she doesn't die right away.

 

I agree with this statement and I put emphasis for those that are too lazy to read the whole thing, but want to know what I agree with.

Spaghetti, I'm fairly certain that I was Scanned, for one. I don't know if we have three Kandra or not, but this would probably rule out Wilson being Scanned. (I already said this earlier, but I had to respond to your assumption of Wilson being Scanned, because some irrational part of my brain says that good things will happen if I address a missive to "Spaghetti." Just feels good to write that )

How are you certain that you were scanned? (Not trying to raise amounts of suspicion, I'm genuinely wondering how you could know that someone scanned you.)

 

With two loyalists now dead that means we have 16 full cycles until the traitors can simply overpower us - assuming that the only reason anyone dies is from their kill (we don't lynch anybody and no Mistborns make a kill). If we decide to lynch Stink today and he turns out to be good, than that number will drop to 14 at the start of the next cycle. I ask that all players remove their votes and the Kandra scans Stink tonight to confirm. I have said this before and I will say it again, just because we have the power to kill someone doesn't mean we should. If I didn't have the above reasons to trust Stink and doubt Wilson I would support his death, but unfortunately in this situation there are way too many possibilities that I am not willing to condemn another player to death.

I agree that we should wait on the whole lynch Stink thing since there isn't yet major evidence against him and we don't want to lose a loyal if it's unnecessary. But I do think we should keep our eyes open for any other suspicious people because while I do agree on scanning Stink (and Wilson for that matter) I have no problem with another lynch so long as there is a just cause and suspicion.   

 

I would like to request that all of our mistborn, unless they have solid suspicions, target the inactive players tonight. And by that I mean people that have posted none at all. There is not really a reason for having that sort of behavior and not explaining in the thread at all. It only takes a minute or two to post that you are busy IRL.

 

I don't agree with just killing off people that are most likely loyal, but I would like to hear from them at some point. The reason that I do not agree with this is because the more people we get rid of the closer the Eliminators will get to outnumbering us. So why should we lessen our time of weeding out the eliminators by killing our own?

 

I do trust STINK though. I mentioned in the night phase that he'd sent me some PMs, and I talked to him quite a bit with those. I don't think he is a traitor, or at least that's the feeling I get from him, but if I had to say, I wouldn't really be able to pin down an exact reason why.

This'll probably be all I'll be posting for today, but I'll try and keep up to date on the thread.

Why do you trust him already? One night of talking has cleared all possible suspicions? Seems fishy.

 

 

Ninja'd by 5(?) people while writing this

 

 

Edit: In reply to one of the ninjas. @Kipper as Ada mentioned I don't think it was wise to say that you think her role won't be much of a loss, but at the same time I don't think it's too much of decision-changer to the Eliminators since it's only what you think and not what you know. Even if Wilson does not have a major ability, she is still a good player and it would be sad to lose her if she is loyal.

 

Side Note: Can someone make up a list for me of what Abilities are the most important to what ones are the least important? I am still just a baby at this game and I would like it just for my own personal knowledge.

Edited November 8, 2015 by queensteph

[Kipper he/him]

Could you PM me the next Night cycle to discuss why you trust Kipper? I am trying to find someone I know I can trust and any information you can give me to link me to someone that is pretty positively loyal would be great.

 

 

How are you certain that you were scanned? (Not trying to raise amounts of suspicion, I'm genuinely wondering how you could know that someone scanned you.)

 

I could tell you what she said, but she could probably explain it better. Essentially, I claimed a role that I knew would get me suspicion and would likely get me Scanned, plus I'm just a trustable/likeable guy in general. Feel free to give me your information.

 

Someone told me that they were telling a Kandra to Scan me. Third-hand, but it's all I got.

[RippleGylf she/her]

But since people don't want to go for Stink, I'm willing to look elsewhere. Ripple. You seem a little too certain about me. You're also reading a little over-much into my words to try to twist them to come back on me. I wasn't confident in Stink's role. I admitted that he hadn't fully claimed Forger, so I knew there was a small chance that he wasn't when I first mentioned him being a Forger. I acknowledged this. My questions to him were to figure out the reasons for the discrepancies I had noted. That post was willing to accept that he was being honest about being in contact with a Forger, but since his being in contact with a Forger contradicted something else he'd said, I was trying to sort out what was truth from what was lie.

 

Yet you're saying that I'm "confident concerning [his] role". Why? Perhaps because you want to make people think that I know more than I do? That I'm "confident" about more than I should be? I wasn't any more certain than I should've been based on the way that Stink had acted in my PM with him, and I made that very clear. All of the information from my PM with Stink is here, in the thread. My reason for believing he was Forger, my reason for telling him about Maill. All of it. I made logical assumptions with the information I had. Those were partly wrong, but I still think it was logical.

 

You also reinforce the idea that the Surgebinder's purpose was reverse psychology. If I were a traitor, I'd have no reason to use reverse psychology like that. In fact, I would avoid having my name mentioned in that kind of a note, since it just throws me back into the spotlight--somewhere that I don't particularly like being when I'm evil. I much prefer the sidelines and one-on-one communication. I was already suspected due to the Shallan-lynch and while a note like that could reduce suspicion on me, that gets into the realm of I Know You Knows, and I avoid those like the plague. I would not do that. Go ahead and spin your paranoid webs saying that "well, that's precisely the reason why she would," but the fact remains that I would not and did not. So someone who already seems so certain about me pushing the idea that I did makes me even more wary. Why would you be suggesting that, unless it's part of the plan to get me lynched?

 

 

Patience, young one. It's a virtue.

 

I already felt suspicious of you after the whole Shallan situation. From the wording of your original posts, it seemed like you were absolutely certain that Stink was a forger. However, your argument about the message does make sense. So, I'll retract my vote on Wilson for now.

[Araris Valerian he/him]

@queensteph: The thing is, inactive players are a waste. In the Steelheart LG, team good lost the game because of an inactive (and because Wilson is crazy good at being evil). It didn't matter that we had an extra player sitting around at the end of the game. One eliminator can kill 5 inactive players without sweating. So we should get rid of them now for 2 reasons: The threat of being killed might get them to speak up, and one of them might be an eliminator. We can guess at the number of eliminators as around 20%, but until the inactives are gone we can't figure out how many people that are contributing to the game are actually on team evil.

[queensteph she/her]

How are they a waste? I do agree that they might speak up now that their death is being discussed and also that the less people there are the closer we'll get to knowing how many Eliminators there are, but you could say that about just blindly lynching people as well. The lesser the number of players the lesser chances you can be wrong at guessing. That's just simple facts of counting. I'm not ruling out your idea I just simply want to know how exactly killing inactives is an effective way of winning.

[Amanuensis he/him]

Having trouble sleeping so I grabbed my phone to check the thread real quick

@Orlok: I don't see how those two things are contradictory. I advised caution about killing someone who might be valuable but by no means asked someone to say anything if they knew. I should have left a disclaimer advising that it be kept a secret for now but figured people already knew not to.

[Orlok Tsubodai he/him]

Adavantos, not supporting lynching a suspicious player on grounds of not knowing their role, and then complaining when you do learn their role is rather interesting...

I do fully support the thread being told that she is fine to lynch, role wise. This allows us to take a decision on one of the most dangerous players in the game, without an external factor prejudicing our choice

[Araris Valerian he/him]

I would say that it makes the game more fun, rather than easier to win. That being said, it does help if we know roughly how many active eliminators we are up against, and clearing out silent players is the only way to determine if an eliminator is among them.

[queensteph she/her]

I was going to mention this in my earlier post, but since it took me so long I forgot to ask,

@Kas What is tunneling? also, what do you mean when referring to the "meta"? I've seen several people say something about like "meta-gaming" this and that and just wanted some clarification.

 

Edit

 

@Araris I see what you mean, and I guess I'm for it, but only towards the inactives that haven't posted at all (which I know you mentioned earlier in the thread). Since just in the past 30 or so hours of this cycle, many people have probably been asleep/at church(as I have already seen several people mention)/busy elsewhere, I don't want to target them as "inactives". Because they most likely do have a real reason for not being on.

Edited November 8, 2015 by queensteph

[Amanuensis he/him]

@Orlok: Interesting, maybe, but also consistent with two subjects I have been advocating frequently. Avoid role reveals, especially in public, and verify a player is evil before we have them killed.

[Orlok Tsubodai he/him]

And how do you propose we do avoid killing players without having them revealed? Any kandra that do scan are going to become instant targets wen they reveal themselves, and we lose the single biggest source of information for the village!

Indeed - it's far more valuable to lynch a traitor on suspicion, and see who defends them, than scan them and have them be lynched without discussion - in the latter case, very little information is gained.

[Amanuensis he/him]

Assuming that they weren't lying to me when they approached me about being a Kandra, I am currently in contact with one. I asked them to scan Kipper last night but they have yet to post either the code word I gave them if he came back as good or evil, so I cannot vouch for what he is quite yet. My guess at this point is they decided to scan me first to make sure I wasn't evil and passed on the info that "if I die then Adavantos is evil" to someone else they sorta trust. Because I promised them I would protect their identity I will not say anything beyond that.

If there is a third Kandra out there, if you find someone that is for sure good it might be smart to send them a PM tonight revealing yourself that way they can act as an intermediary in a similar way.

[queensteph she/her]

If what your talking about was Adavantos' idea about scanning stink then looking at it from his point of view. He supposedly has some peoples trust and so some have probably claimed to him. If he knows a kandra then he could easily have them report back to him whether or not stink was loyal. He could then give us the info on stink in the thread without revealing who the kandra was. (This is all assuming that in this scenario both Ada and the kandra are loyal.) It does of course have flaws since we don't have any proof of who to trust, but I trust Adavantos somewhat, and want to see what he has further to say on the issue. (I know you're sleeping Ada, but please respond when you get the time)  Edit: Ok, Go to sleep Ada...Edit2: Hope you can sleep soon Ada...

 

Also, based on any evidence we have, Stink and Wilson aren't even that suspicious, so I think the reason Ada proposed this idea was because he doesn't (and neither do I) want to lynch someone who could possibly be a forger (Stink) based on some suspicions that are pretty far fetched. While I do agree that there are a couple sound accusations, none of them really seem strong enough to make us need to lynch one of them.

Edited November 8, 2015 by queensteph

[Amanuensis he/him]

Seems I've been stricken with a case of insomnia tonight, so I'm not quite asleep yet.

[STINK he/him]

I'm not the Forger. You could call me the Forgers intermediary if that applies the same way as it would with the Kandra.

I too am going to sleep soon, so thanks for all coming now