Anniversary Game 2: Return of the Koloss

[STINK]

As is easy to tell, I am the second Tineye. Sorry Maw.

[Kasimir]

I have a downright foolhardy and reckless suggestion. So, like, just hear me out:

We out all the other Smokers. Every one of them: from Smoker #1 - Smoker #4. Okay, so technically, this usually isn't done because this still narrows the field of players that the Eliminators have to select from, since some could be valuable roles, etcetera etcetera.

Well, here's some reasons that I think outweigh the risks:

1. There are, according to Ada before he died, five Smokers. Assume that Ada wasn't doing what he usually does and pulling another of his gambits because he's, apparently, Gambit Central. So some doubt there, but let's assume he's truthful. There's definitely a decent chance that at least one (possibly two?) of us are evil, with an absolute upper limit of three. (If you think about it for a bit, you'll figure why I said that ) Which means that knowing who our Smokers are is very helpful: it means that we ought to be directing suspicions within this group. And it means, now that Ada's dead, we have a 1/4 - 2/4 chance (in all likelihood) of hitting a Spiked. That's decent odds, I think. [Of course, to some extent, this is guessing Meta's role distribution, and that's a risky thing. But I have a high level of confidence that at least one of us is evil.]

2. What's the worst that could happen? The Eliminators kill us? Well, if they do, they'll be thinning the field even more, because this just makes it even more likely that one of the remaining Smokers is Spiked. (Assuming they do not waste a kill on one of their own.) That's better for us than for them.

3. I think we [smokers] should share actions, as well, in order to allow the Village to participate in analysis of us, rather than just having the Seeker and their gang decide what to do. (And let's face it, with publicly-known Smokers, our Soothers and Rioters can test to see if anyone has been/is Copperclouded or lying, rather than depending on one claimed Seeker, who may or may not be a Villager in the first place.)

4. For some who might worry that this digresses from the activity of finding suspicious people: I am not yet ready to out the Smokers I know/suspect, but I will say this--that there is quite an amount of suspicion directed at the Smokers anyway, so it's not as if we're sidetracking discussion. Rather, we're simply bringing another facet of analysis to bear. (And yes, Smokers, I will start outing by tomorrow. I'm giving some time to see how my idea is regarded, and if y'all would like to do the honours.)

tldr; 5 Smokers, Ada's one, and Ada was a Villager. There's 4 Smokers left. What're the odds we're all Villagers? I think this is well worth pursuing.

Edit: For the record, I Smoked on Night 1, but not on Night 2 and Night 3. Any votechanger who would like to try this out, feel free to do so. I'll throw in a vote later on.

Edit 2: Sorry, misread Alv's post as saying there were five Smokers. This is what I get for ragequitting from the game, I'll go sit in a corner of shame now. Still, my point remains for 4 Smokers, even if it is not as intuitively forceful. In fact, this means we have 3 Smokers left, then.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Kasimir

[Wyrmhero]

The danger there Kas is that revealing Smokers also reduces the space our more important Roles have to move and hide in. Also that we're lynching against Roles there, which is a dangerous way to proceed, but if there are indeed five of them...

 

Mailliw's list is interesting, with seven people on it which he thinks is over 50% correct. Can I ask you to show your working? Anyone can state who they believe to be an Eliminator, but it'd be rather nice to see why you think that you're correct here.

 

And finally, with regards to STINK's claim, I'm not quite sure where I stand on him. I don't know why he's revealed his Role like this, except maybe to head off being the lynch target, but it seems a bit early for that. I certainly don't suspect him more than others at this stage.

[Kasimir]

The danger there Kas is that revealing Smokers also reduces the space our more important Roles have to move and hide in. Also that we're lynching against Roles there, which is a dangerous way to proceed, but if there are indeed five of them...

 

Mailliw's list is interesting, with seven people on it which he thinks is over 50% correct. Can I ask you to show your working? Anyone can state who they believe to be an Eliminator, but it'd be rather nice to see why you think that you're correct here.

 

And finally, with regards to STINK's claim, I'm not quite sure where I stand on him. I don't know why he's revealed his Role like this, except maybe to head off being the lynch target, but it seems a bit early for that. I certainly don't suspect him more than others at this stage.

I've already acknowledged this in my argument. I think that the consideration of 'space' for important roles, TBH, is just one consideration: it shouldn't be regarded as sacrosanct, which means that it can be outweighed by other considerations. And I do think the other considerations outweigh it at this point in time. Basically, I'd like to hear why you think the other considerations are still eclipsed by the space to manuever consideration, rather than raising it as a knee-jerk response. Wyrm.

I don't believe in reifying strategies. I believe that circumstances can make rules of thumb rather silly to follow. I've laid out why I think these circumstances are compelling. What reasons ground your disagreement? How do you weight them?

 

Edit: I should note this is less a statement of a suspicion than a desire to make sure I have your attention, King

Edited January 2, 2016 by Kasimir

[STINK]

My claim is mostly cause at least 3 people had already PMd me wanting me to claim, and what's the point of claiming to 3 people in PMs when you could do it in thread?

[Wyrmhero]

I did a much longer post before that one stating my comments a bit more clearly, but I accidentally closed the browser and lost it all >>. I think I managed to misread your original post when re-writing the reply. I thought that you ignored or glossed over the space issue at that time, which you did not. My bad. I have no real issue with the spatial factor as long as we acknowledge this as a special case and don't have Roleclaims coming out of everywhere, as we often used to have with Roleless Villagers, for the rest of this game. I'm also usually against revealing Roles without their permissions, but in the circumstances we can waive that.

 

My only actual concern is that this may lead to blind lynching of a Role-type until none exist/only hidden ones exist. We need to do this intelligently and with tact, using it as additional evidence rather than going 'Smoker? Lynch!'. Role distribution breakdowns cannot and should not replace logical deductions. Provided this is understood and taken into account, I do not have a problem with this strategy.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Wyrmhero

[Mark IV]

Well, there is one thing that I don't understand. (Two actually)

1) you're advocating that you (Kas-As a smoker) be lynched? Or seeked?

2) why do you want to kill all smokers? Based on an assumption that one of them is most probably spiked? IMO, that's the same chance as the role less have of being spiked.(not saying that they should be killed, just giving a comparison)

So, is there an underlying logic that I'm missing? Or did we just not think over it (unlikely)?

Aw man... I'm gonna miss Ada's summaries....

[Kasimir]

My only actual concern is that this may lead to blind lynching of a Role-type until none exist/only hidden ones exist. We need to do this intelligently and with tact, using it as additional evidence rather than going 'Smoker? Lynch!'. Role distribution breakdowns cannot and should not replace logical deductions. Provided this is understood and taken into account, I do not have a problem with this strategy.

Then we're on the same page, Wyrm-cyning. I suggest we take the Smoker category of players as a starting point for analysis, not in part because a number of them have already been brought up as suspicions anyway. Doing so at least gives us a way to focus analysis and to say, "Okay, maybe Smoker #1/#2 did something dodgy, and they also did another thing dodgy."

Frankly, lynching because [smoker] has got to be pretty darn ridiculous, and I haven't taken leave of my senses to the point of suggesting that. But suspicions stacked up on the fact that we have 4 Smokers and 1 of them has been proven Village? I think that looks pretty good, TBH.

And as another of my considerations pointed out: I think it would allow our Emotional Allomancers to basically be more useful besides blindly fishing. We know that with a reported Seeker scanning people, the Spiked are going to have to gamble about staying open, or about Copperclouding themselves. We should, I think, at least check some of our Smokers (of those who have claimed not to have Smoked themselves) to make sure they're not Smoking someone else. (Note that while I can hardly defend the position of not Smoking one's self since I did that, I do think Smoking someone else is just not helping.) The key here is because it's impossible for a Smoker to be able to Smoke someone else without Smoking themselves. If the Seeker or other Emotional Allomancers run into Copperclouds, then it's good to be able to cross-reference or to try to catch the Smokers in a lie. This doesn't have to be done all the time, but it's obviously an option. For one, if there is a Coppercloud, but none of the Smokers could've Smoked (e.g. were not on 17S for the entire Night, did not show up with a Coppercloud to Emotional Allomancers), then we know that there is a stealth Smoker and there's a high likelihood that one is evil.

*shrugs* Just an idea, but I like ideas that more or less enhance the options/choices of the Village, rather than funnelling it all through a single information bottleneck--or a tripleneck, I suppose.

[Mark IV]

And, one last doubt.

We would need a proxy for the seeker. Wouldn't we?

(Or am I horribly mistaken? And Kas was part of the Trusted Trinity?)

In any case, I am only raising doubts right now so that we don't get stuck while executing the plan.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Mark IV

[STINK]

Mark IV.

 

1. RP

2. 'giving direction to conversation' about Seonid

3. Unaware of the hint that was given about me

4. 'Seonid devalued Seekers, so died'

5. 'Never really read N1, no clue on eliminators (because I'm bad)

6. Supports Seonid on Seekers, says that coinshots probably village

7. 'Was the vote for luring him out?'

8. Sarcasm about Wyrm claim being subtle

9. RP

10. First sign of HS support, voting for Wyrm.

11. Vote tally

12. Says there are 2 tineyes.

13. Keeps vote on Wyrm

14. Thanks luckat for explaining why Wyrm was suspicious.

15. Supports HS about Lopen situation

16. RP

17. 4 reasons why Wyrm could be spiked, 'don't want to let an elim fall through our grasp'

18. Is SE tense?

19. 'I see'

20. Wyrm telling Kas (about role) made Mark more suspicious of Wyrm.

21. Greens his vote, 'who do I vote for now'

22. Finds spiked death good. Wants to be smoked. Who was suspicious of Lopen? Congratulations on killing Lopen

23. Thought Hael had a vote on him

24. Tells HS that it is night. No votes for lynch.

25. 'Sure thing HS!'

26. RP question

27. Question about when do we know if Tineyes are dead

28. Encrypts something and says it will be distributed (did anyone get this?)

29. Asks about 2 lurchers and Soother situation

30. Violet check

31. Jokes about bandwagoning HS

32. 'Well he'll do it for me!' about HS (I think)

33. Says he isn't Mistborn. 

34. 'I'm not that evil, am I?'

35. Explains why he thought the Tineye message was about him (a capital U and RP name)

36. 'Eliminators may have thought that Araris was Rioter'

37. 'Wow HS! Way to set up and IKYK situation!'

38. Problems wouldn't be in reality

39. Votes Hael to make a tie so that HS doesn't die. Explains why, as HS 'is encouraging discussion in the village' with a Group PM and volunteering to be scanned.

40. 'Who are the Trusted Trinity?'

41. Asks for Vote tally

42. 'STINK has been non-committal up to now, and that's suspicious' ( btw, in my PM with Mark, he basically asked for my role, I said no and then it went off-topic, and occasionally he asks again. I asked him for info and he basically said no.)

43. 'A bandwagon on STINK? Woah!'

44. Mistake

45. Explains colouring

46. Time

47. Time

48. Thinks someone is trying to get HS killed

49. Definitely a Rioter

50. RP + Trusts HS

51. Pun

52. Happy New Year!

53. Joke about Mailliw cracking Tineye codes

54. Thinks Maw voted for multiple people

55. Scroll up the page

 

PM Time! 

 

Yesterday, Mark said he voted for me because my one-liners were suspicious. Oh look, Mark has a few, now doesn't he? He wanted to save HS as well, naturally. In our PM, he actually goes 'Topic Change!' and makes me flow with it, so can't really be on topic. 

On the topic of why he trusts HS, it is 'ironically because of the reasons held against him'.

 

Also, is it just my brain, or did HS say that Lopen had sent him PMs about his inactivity as well as Mark getting one, but in HS' paraphrasing of all the PMs between HS and Lopen, there was no such PM? Would be great if someone could get back to me on that. 

 

Might do this on HS later, but currently don't have the time so yeah, Mark IV, ladies and gentlemen. 

[Mark IV]

Let me make myself rather more clear.

1) I meant that you had contributed nothing except for one-liners (as far as I was aware). And, now, instead of defending yourself, you're accusing me. Not exactly innocent, is it? But, I'll overlook that.

2) those statements about seonid's death were just my (naive) thoughts. And, seeing as how they gained no momentum, I get a feeling that they couldn't really be suspicious.

3) well, I have already stated my reasons for supporting HS to you, but I'll make them public, cause why not?-

has tried to advocate conversation when the thread had gone dead. Also formed a PM group with the explicit intent of starting conversation.

4)I changed the topic in our PM that first (and consequent times) because we had already gone off topic before, and I couldn't think of saying anything, so, "Topic change". If you want to discuss something specific, say it explicitly. I'm not good at catching implications.

5) if I did want to know your role, I would say it like -"Stink, what's your role?"

6) I generally joke in our PMs, and you can ask Maill that I don't expect anything serious. We have already discussed that PMs with you become nonsense after a while. (Not that I don't enjoy them). I didn't expect you to roleclaim.

7) I'm not sure why you have put in my entire post history, but, if you see, I have stated accusations, voted with purpose, and supported a person. Clearly, this shows that not all my posts are pointless.

8) my objections against you were that you hadn't said much in the way of contribution.

I'm pretty sure that it was Maill who Lopen had contacted, along with me (but, that just might be my brain).

Phew! My longest post yet. Hopefully this will convince you, Stink, that I'm not merely posting pointless posts.

Adequate explanation?

[STINK]

Thanks for replying Mark.

 

(1) I nearly died because HS was up for the lynch and you found my one liners suspicious. Can't really defend against that.

 

(2) Those comments on Seonid's death could be your naive thoughts, or they could be someone playing the 'noob' card too much.

 

(3) When you start a PM, don't you always have the intent to start a conversation? Making a group isn't that special. And the thread hasn't looked particularly dead to me at any point, just people being busy.

 

(4) I do say stuff explicitly, such as asking you why you trusted HS. That point was made because my 'one-liners' that aren't necessarily about the game were apparently suspicious, while you have made quite a few.

 

(5) Pretty sure you did. 'I'll trade information' followed by 'Your role?' during either N1 or D1.

 

(6) Nothing really to say.

 

(7) I put it in because it makes it easier to see trends and analyse posts made. Your votes with purpose have been because of HS. 

 

(8) Don't always expect everyone to always have on-point contributions, I play for fun

 

And did you send anyone your password for your encrypted post?

[Mark IV]

1) agreed.

2) well, I didn't have any other cards to play. This was my first interaction in a forum, with you guys. It was also the first time I was playing such serious SE type game. Now, I feel a little more confident. So I put a vote down, bam! I get a vote on myself.

3) I do generally start PMs with the intent to gather information. But, just not so early on.

And, activity had died down at the start of D1. Now that you say it, I guess people were busy at the time.

4) the way I saw it is that you (as far as I could recall) hadn't made many contributing posts. Direct me to your posts before N3, and I will stand corrected.

5)I didn't really expect a roleclaim that early. It was N1. No sane person would roleclaim so easily.

7) doesn't really go against my points. You know the purpose. You know the target. You know the person I was trying to protect.

8)thanks for the reminder. I got caught up in the game's heat.

No, I did not send the code to anyone. Later, I had realised that sending the codes out at a future date would make no difference. Don't try guessing. The password isn't meant for that.

One last thing. Stink, could you state your reasons for suspicion of HS? Why do you suspect him so?

Edited January 2, 2016 by Mark IV

[STINK]

Why do I suspect him? Dunno. Picked his name off the player list. 

[Mark IV]

Wow......

[Mailliw73]

The danger there Kas is that revealing Smokers also reduces the space our more important Roles have to move and hide in. Also that we're lynching against Roles there, which is a dangerous way to proceed, but if there are indeed five of them...

Mailliw's list is interesting, with seven people on it which he thinks is over 50% correct. Can I ask you to show your working? Anyone can state who they believe to be an Eliminator, but it'd be rather nice to see why you think that you're correct here.

Those are my top suspicions. I hate putting my suspicions into words, as I can never do it very well. Things have just added up for each of them, and there are a couple who I just want to reply because they haven't said much.

Stink. I believe my actual vote is on Bort now.

Kas, Kas, Kas. You were one of the minds behind the Spanreed Deception and you believe this is a good idea? You know Meta's a troll. Oh, and, also, there's one less Smoker than you think. So, no, I don't agree with your plan.

[STINK]

Mailliw, what made Sart,Orlok,Shallan,Creccio,Mash and me go off your list of suspicions?

[Mailliw73]

Stink, you're still there, I'm just no longer voting for you.

I'd actually forgotten about Orlok somehow, and I'd probably put him in ahead of Bort. Sart would probably be right after that list. Shallan and Creccio, I was never suspicious of, I just want them to post.

[Kasimir]

Kas, Kas, Kas. You were one of the minds behind the Spanreed Deception and you believe this is a good idea? You know Meta's a troll. Oh, and, also, there's one less Smoker than you think. So, no, I don't agree with your plan.

Which is why, I repeat myself for the twentieth time, and apparent ad nauseum, I said, starting point for discussion. It is, I assert, a far more fruitful line of inquiry than consistently banging on our two Tineyes. Lord Hodium, if you seem determined to continue misrepresentation, I'm only going to have to wonder how much is carelessness and how much is deliberate--after all, you know what's at stake just as much as I do.

I do think this is a good idea. We either force them to make their Smoker do nothing--in which case, our Seeker (if we have one, and since the Village seems determined to rely on them) is free to move, or we force them to keep smoking. To construe my argument as 'lynch all Smokers' is to commit a straw man, but I'm sure you're very familiar with that fallacy, so I needn't go into it.

Meta is a troll =/= Meta cannot be guessed. If you look at his past games, the balance didn't always match our expectations but it made sense given the other spread of roles. That's always my point. Meta doesn't just throw all sorts of roles for kicks. He doesn't just throw five Coinshots into this game (Coinshots, even if there are five of you, laugh at me after the game, all right?) for excrement and giggles. If there are five Coinshots, we can expect a number of Lurchers and Thugs. All indications exist within the game. You conflate "Do not guess Meta without evidence" with the claim that Meta's role distributions are balanced and must be internally consistent. The former is a strong claim, and the latter is a weaker claim. To apply the strong claim to all weak claims is a flawed argument.

 

Now, let's grant we do have a Seeker since we have Ada's testimony. Now, granted, that could be a Spiked Seeker, in which case we could all be good. Or it could be a good Seeker, in which case you can bloody well bet that it'd be ridiculous for not even one of us to be evil. Could they be pulling a spanreed? Yep. In which case, we once again force them to decide if they are going to stay open, or more or less light themselves up the moment a Seeker/Emotional Allomancer discovers them.

[Mailliw73]

You believe there are 3 Smokers, correct, Kas? If so, there are, in actuality, only 2. Which means I don't trust one of those to be evil. It's possible, and if you're determined to do this, I'll likely start with you.

I understand how Meta balances games. They are balanced, yes. And we only have one Seeker claim. One Seeker(maybe 2 if there's an evil one) and 3/4 Smokers doesn't seem right to me.

[Haelbarde]

We do have close to 50% of the player count as inactive, semi-inactive, or non contributing (note that that's me counting just by looking at the player list and counting who I think hasn't done much/anything). It means, unless they've been active in PMs, there's stacks of people who have given no indication at all of their roles.

[Elbereth]

El turned and closed the door behind her, and set down her heavy bag with a grateful sigh. "I'm back!" she called, getting a muffled response from Kassien, who was somehere in the back.

El wanted to sink into a chair, but she had to sort out all of the plants she'd collected first. "Fresh arrowroot and rosemary, some fennel, as many nightbane mushrooms as I could find..." she muttered to herself, trying to take her mind off what she'd seen as she walked back through the town. The palisade was completely gone, burnt to little more than ashes. And everyone was looking suspiciously at everyone else, walking by furtively or even arguing openly in the streets. El shivered, and forced herself back to sorting out plants. Anything but the thought of her town, the place she loved, the only place she had ever been, destroyed by the koloss.

Or worse, destroyed from within.

---

I'm going to assume the Coinshots don't exist, are inactive, or are very indecisive/reticent to use their power.

Now, my suspicions of the remaining Spiked are 4 or 5 of the following:Stink

Bort

Lu

Ripple

Wyrm

Venture

Elb

I know my vote will only count on Stink, but let's put some fear in you all.

Though you have since explained this as more of gut feelings, I'm still somewhat suspicious that it's just for reactions.

Let me make myself rather more clear.

3) well, I have already stated my reasons for supporting HS to you, but I'll make them public, cause why not?-

has tried to advocate conversation when the thread had gone dead. Also formed a PM group with the explicit intent of starting conversation.

I just wanted to note that trying to create discussion is not necessarily an indicator of being Loyal. (see Adavantos in MR10, for example- Diagrammist who revealed specifically to create discussion, among other things)

Kind of on topic, I think Mark is Loyal, because of how strongly he's protecting HS. On the other hand, this does not make me suspect Hellscythe any less. Much of that is gut, but there is one concrete reason. That being: Hellscythe is being generally less aggressive. He has been getting better over time, but there seems to have been something of a steeper curve this game than usual, to my thinking. That indicates to me help from fellow eliminators. There have been a few other things that irked me, I think, but that's the main one that stood out.

If that's not the case, Hellscythe, then my compliments!

[Mashadar Mistborn]

You believe there are 3 Smokers, correct, Kas? If so, there are, in actuality, only 2. Which means I don't trust one of those to be evil. It's possible, and if you're determined to do this, I'll likely start with you.

I understand how Meta balances games. They are balanced, yes. And we only have one Seeker claim. One Seeker(maybe 2 if there's an evil one) and 3/4 Smokers doesn't seem right to me.

But the vote that got Lippen lynched had what, three vote manipulations? Smokers don't just balance seekers, they also balance soothers and rioters.

[Mailliw73]

But the vote that got Lippen lynched had what, three vote manipulations? Smokers don't just balance seekers, they also balance soothers and rioters.

Good point, and with at least 3 of those, 3 or 4 Smokers doesn't seem balanced to me. I bet there are more not claiming or inactive, and they might be where the Spiked one is hiding.

[Hellscythe]

El turned and closed the door behind her, and set down her heavy bag with a grateful sigh. "I'm back!" she called, getting a muffled response from Kassien, who was somehere in the back.

El wanted to sink into a chair, but she had to sort out all of the plants she'd collected first. "Fresh arrowroot and rosemary, some fennel, as many nightbane mushrooms as I could find..." she muttered to herself, trying to take her mind off what she'd seen as she walked back through the town. The palisade was completely gone, burnt to little more than ashes. And everyone was looking suspiciously at everyone else, walking by furtively or even arguing openly in the streets. El shivered, and forced herself back to sorting out plants. Anything but the thought of her town, the place she loved, the only place she had ever been, destroyed by the koloss.

Or worse, destroyed from within.

---

Though you have since explained this as more of gut feelings, I'm still somewhat suspicious that it's just for reactions.

I just wanted to note that trying to create discussion is not necessarily an indicator of being Loyal. (see Adavantos in MR10, for example- Diagrammist who revealed specifically to create discussion, among other things)

Kind of on topic, I think Mark is Loyal, because of how strongly he's protecting HS. On the other hand, this does not make me suspect Hellscythe any less. Much of that is gut, but there is one concrete reason. That being: Hellscythe is being generally less aggressive. He has been getting better over time, but there seems to have been something of a steeper curve this game than usual, to my thinking. That indicates to me help from fellow eliminators. There have been a few other things that irked me, I think, but that's the main one that stood out.

If that's not the case, Hellscythe, then my compliments!

Compliment accepted. I'm on mobile now and my new laptop has been acting funny(not turning on) but I'll share my thoughts later. I'm going to accuse Haelbarde for the death of Adavantos for now.