Long Game 20: Warcamp Enigmas

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

Well, I think I just found out where my/StrawMan's Reverser went to. Thanks, Elk, for thieving that from me. 

 

And the Ghostbloods killed Joe. Who had a Shardblade. Let's hope they got the Painrial instead.

 

I'm guessing that Spanreed Elk had was yours, DC? It looks to me like he stole it and then died with it. I mention this because my one-cycle Spanreed was stolen from me two nights ago, but it wouldn't be this one that Elk has, since mine would've disappeared, and I already asked Maill if that spanreed counted for the thief win con, and he said yes. So I don't see why he would've stolen another spanreed. This means there's another thief out there. 

Well my spanreed was stolen...but it wasnt Elk he stole your spanreed

[little wilson she/her]

So he started with a spanreed then?

[DeathClutch19 he/him]

No he stole the one you made, it disappeared but it still counted toward his win con. At least that is what he told me.

Though he may have started with one as well.

 

Edit: For Clarification

Edited May 2, 2016 by DeathClutch19

[little wilson she/her]

Well, since he died with a spanreed, I'm guessing he started with a spanreed, since that spanreed he died with is not the one he stole from me. Not that it even matters at all, because he didn't steal yours but someone else did, so the point still stands that there's another thief out there.

[Alvron]

Wait, how do you know DC's spanreed was stolen?  He could've given it away.

 

Edit, NVM.  Just read DCs post above where he said it was stolen.  I'll go back to working on my game now.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Alvron

[little wilson she/her]

I just assumed it was, since my PM with him closed and he didn't really have any reason to give it away.

[Elbereth she/her]

Because he just said his spanreed was stolen?

Well my spanreed was stolen...but it wasnt Elk he stole your spanreed

I mean, he could be trying to cause paranoia by implying that there's another thief out there when there's really not... I guess... Seems unlikely though.

[Mailliw73 he/him]

Burnt was not killed. I have redone her role, alignment, and items. PMs will be sent out now.

[Zas678 he/him]

So was Burnt the person who "wasn't killed" by the Grandbow? Did anyone catch what Burnt's alignment was before the reset?

[Elbereth she/her]

Yes, but I don't think it should matter, and that's not a piece of information we should use going forward.

[Mailliw73 he/him]

Yes, but I don't think it should matter, and that's not a piece of information we should use going forward.

Correct. 

 

Someone else, not Burnt, was shot by a Bow and not killed. 

 

Everyone should've received their PMs now. If you did not, please PM me.

[Mailliw73 he/him]

"atacked Phat, Eldin, 12rot. Not attack brt spag. (Rdirected)

gave wils spanreed

Got pain from LUN. had 1 alredy. 2nd vanishd

Declared heir (not Wils)

Protected alv, n/a, nyli

Trust Wils, nyli, stink, zas. (Kild elo bc Zas)

Dont trust Lopen"

-Sani Joslin, 32 seconds before death.

[Seonid he/him]

Alright. I'm still not done with my assignments, but I'm much closer. And it's progressing long enough in the game that I can't stay inactive. I'm still going to be sporadic in my activity, but I'm not totally inactive anymore.

 

I haven't had much of a chance to do a lot of analysis, but Wilson is sticking out to me as someone to be wary of. (That might just be my paranoia speaking, though. I have a natural bias towards trusting Wilson, so I try to counteract that. Most of the time, I end up with no read on her whatsoever. So I end up trusting her while being irrationally paranoid that I'm wrong. Hasn't saved my life yet, but I fully expect it to eventually.) It should be noted that I'm  not making an accusation or even a statement of suspicion here - just noting that she's very experienced and good at being both an Eliminator and a villager. If she's with us, she's a hugely valuable asset. If she's a Ghostblood, we need her gone post-haste. I'd like to have her thoughts on why Joe trusted her.

 

Elbereth is also putting up red flags to my instincts - I'll try to go through her posts and see why that might be - this could just be nothing useful, just quantum fluctuations in my suspicion-space. It might be something more. I'll come back to this later and see if I have anything substantive, or if this should be flagged as a false positive on my readings.

 

I lean towards trusting Nyali - though I'm not 100% on that. She seems to have been taking a large part in early attempts to get inactive players speaking - this behavior benefits the village more often than the Eliminators (though it could easily be a ploy to gain trust).

 

I have no read on Stink - I can't tell the difference between helpful!Stink, troll!Stink, eliminator!Stink, and any other kind of Stink that comes up.

 

Alvron I'm leaning towards good, but my paranoia is striking rather hard here too. He's another one who we really can't afford to be wrong about.

 

Right now, I'm going to put some pressure on Lopen. Why did Joe say not to trust you?

 

Also - you Ghostbloods are jerks. You killed my scribe before I could even have a chance to roleplay with her! I'm going to do a grand eulogy for her. If I ever have the time.

 

That's all I've got. I will try to be more helpful now that I'm semi-back, but I make no promises.

[TheMightyLopen he/him]

So Elkanah wasn't the only thief? Great. Well, as long as the remaining thief doesn't cause too much trouble, I don't think I'd view him as a direct enemy.

 

As far as the Grandbow kills go, I don't really know what to think. I still believe that whoever killed Orlok is a Noble, but it's impossible to tell who that specific player attacked this time. I do think it's interesting that there was not only 1 extra Grandbow attacks, but 2. I would hope that at least one of them was created by an Artifabrian though, because 3 Grandbows(1 of whom is most definitely Noble, and probably at least 2 of the attacks were made by Nobles, since I doubt a Ghostblood Grandbow archer would hold off on attacking for this long) and a Shardblade(possibly in the hands of the Ghostbloods now) sound like they would create a lot of trouble. Even if we assume that only 1 of them is evil, or even none of them, village kill roles can really shorten the game, which I'm not personally a fan of, because the longer the game goes, the more information the village can collect. But hey, that's only my opinion.

 

Seonid, I don't know. He mentioned earlier that he thought my playstyle was similar to my playstyle in MR13(where we were both eliminators), but then said he went back through my posts and said he was less suspicious of me, but still suspicious some(or something along the lines of that). That's as much as he ever said about me I think, before now.

 

Glad to have you joining us. With the death of 2 Nobles and 1 player that is not a Ghostblood(so...a Thief ), we need to have as many players as possible active and participating in discussion. In that vein of thought, I'll put a vote on Trelagist. You seem to be posting very small posts, and even in those posts, you haven't mentioned much in terms of suspicions/trusts/or opinions.

[AliasSheep]

There is also a thief

Singular indeterminate article - there is only one thief, and you don't know who it is.

 

though he may end up helping you.

Given English's handy plurality-indeterminate third person pronoun, the fact that a singular pronoun is used implies that there is only one Thief.

Thief's Win: Steal at least one of each item(excluding Shards and a Soulcaster) throughout the course of the game to become a master thief and live a life of luxury.

Not "Thieves' Win" or "Thief Win", both of which could imply plural, but "Thief's Win", the win of the one thief. (Admittedly, this is the weakest point of the four)

 

In addition, this is supposed to be a rerun of LG5, and people refer to "the thief", which implies there was only one then as well. (Actually, this might be the real weakest, but eh)

 

Mailli has stated multiple times that there are no secret rules, that is, anything we know about how the games work from the original post is going to be true.  If there were going to be more thieves, I doubt he would have used the language quoted above, as, at least by my standards, that would have fallen under secret rules.  As an analogy, if someone said "There is an apple" and then you discovered two apples, you would think they were keeping something back from you, behind a lie.

 

From this, I think there's an enough evidence to say that there's only one Thief.

 

So, what can we learn from this?

 

First, someone is lying about the spanreeds.

 

DC claims that someone stole their spanreed, but that it wasn't Elk.  Yet, if it wasn't Elk, who stole the spanreed?  In this case, either DC is telling the truth which implies there to be another thief, or Mailli was telling the truth in his OP, implying that either Elk did steal the spanreed or DC's spanreed wasn't stolen and was given away for some reason (or maybe even that they still have it).  Given the fact that Mailli is the GM, I'm inclined towards the latter two options.  There is of course the third option, which is that DC never had a spanreed in the first place, and that this is just a ruse by DC and Wilson.  Given that we know Wilson was in contact with basically everyone two nights ago, and that DC and Wilson had at least somewhat an extended conversation, this is a possibility - though if memory serves, DC was in contact with Nyali as well (Nyali, could you affirm this for us, thanks).

 

DC and Wilson, can I have comments on this from you.  Wilson, you proposed the possibility of another thief, so I'd like your thoughts on this as well.

 

The second thing we can learn from this is that there is no longer a thief, which means that we're generally safe from having our items stolen.  It also means that if someone cuts off spanreed communication with you, they've done it on purpose (either feigning breaking communication, or giving away the spanreed).

 

 

 

One last thing, Mailli, for artifab spanreed conversations, would you normally go through and in the conversation explicitly state that they're closed?

Edited May 2, 2016 by AliasSheep

[Nyali she/her]

DC had a spanreed. I implied it at the start of day two, back when the Wilson/DC mess made me think DC was an eliminator and I was trying to reconcile the confusing PMs from the two of them to me. That's probably why DC lost his... Sorry DC =\

Also, DC claimed to have his from day one, but I can't confirm that since I wasn't in contact with him until night two.

My judgment has proven to be terrible this game, especially in cycle three. Because of that, I'm going to try to sit back today (out of game today, not in-game today) and let other people talk. I'll definitely analyze stuff tomorrow well before the in-game day ends though.

EDIT: Maill - format question: did the write-up mean to imply that there was only one thief, or are there an unknown number of thieves (which could still be one, but could also be more than one)?

EDIT2: btw, because of the clarification earlier, we know that whomever Orlok made an item for got it before Orlok died. Trel, will you please confirm or deny that you used a one-shot Grandbow last night?

Edited May 2, 2016 by Nyali

[Burnt Spaghetti she/her]

Hm.

 

So I was attacked by Joe's shardblade if you hadn't worked that out from his death cry (reason why i didn't die was cause i had a half shard). I find it interesting that it was redirected though...  I have some thoughts on the matter, but i'm somewhat curious as to why people may think that  someone redirected a kill onto me. I wasn't exactly the most active in thread, so i understand someone vig. killing me to cull an inactive, but, that was a redirect.

[STINK he/him]

I think it would be of more benefit to know your thoughts on the matter first, burnt.

[Burnt Spaghetti she/her]

sure. I'm still gathering them though.

[Trelagist]

Nyali, that is indeed true. My target was the one who survived, and I'll reveal them, unless they reveal themselves before I do, this night.

[little wilson she/her]

Singular indeterminate article - there is only one thief, and you don't know who it is.

 

Given English's handy plurality-indeterminate third person pronoun, the fact that a singular pronoun is used implies that there is only one Thief.

Not "Thieves' Win" or "Thief Win", both of which could imply plural, but "Thief's Win", the win of the one thief. (Admittedly, this is the weakest point of the four)

 

In addition, this is supposed to be a rerun of LG5, and people refer to "the thief", which implies there was only one then as well. (Actually, this might be the real weakest, but eh)

 

Mailli has stated multiple times that there are no secret rules, that is, anything we know about how the games work from the original post is going to be true.  If there were going to be more thieves, I doubt he would have used the language quoted above, as, at least by my standards, that would have fallen under secret rules.  As an analogy, if someone said "There is an apple" and then you discovered two apples, you would think they were keeping something back from you, behind a lie.

 

From this, I think there's an enough evidence to say that there's only one Thief.

 

So, what can we learn from this?

 

First, someone is lying about the spanreeds.

 

DC claims that someone stole their spanreed, but that it wasn't Elk.  Yet, if it wasn't Elk, who stole the spanreed?  In this case, either DC is telling the truth which implies there to be another thief, or Mailli was telling the truth in his OP, implying that either Elk did steal the spanreed or DC's spanreed wasn't stolen and was given away for some reason (or maybe even that they still have it).  Given the fact that Mailli is the GM, I'm inclined towards the latter two options.  There is of course the third option, which is that DC never had a spanreed in the first place, and that this is just a ruse by DC and Wilson.  Given that we know Wilson was in contact with basically everyone two nights ago, and that DC and Wilson had at least somewhat an extended conversation, this is a possibility - though if memory serves, DC was in contact with Nyali as well (Nyali, could you affirm this for us, thanks).

 

DC and Wilson, can I have comments on this from you.  Wilson, you proposed the possibility of another thief, so I'd like your thoughts on this as well.

 

The second thing we can learn from this is that there is no longer a thief, which means that we're generally safe from having our items stolen.  It also means that if someone cuts off spanreed communication with you, they've done it on purpose (either feigning breaking communication, or giving away the spanreed).

 

I disagree with all of this.

 

First, that breakdown is just pedantic for a game like this. Of course Maill isn't going to specify in the OP that there could be multiple thieves in the game. It's all based on distribution, which is all based on how many people sign up and how much of a troll Maill is feeling like at any given moment (hint: that's a lot. Maill often feels like a troll). Labeling the thief win con as "thief" rather than "thieves" is also just a clearer way of saying that the thief is by himself. Regardless of how many thieves there are in the game--from one to twenty--each individual thief can only win by himself. He is neutral and cannot win with any other thief.

 

The first game did only have one thief. But the first had 8 players less than this game has. We can safely assume that the distribution will not be the same as the first game.

 

Since we can't guess at his distribution, the best we can do is use what evidence we have to figure it out. If we accept that I am telling the truth about my one-cycle spanreed being stolen (which DC has corroborated by saying that Elk stole that one), and we accept that DC is in turn telling the truth that his spanreed was also stolen, and if we assume that a thief isn't going to steal an item twice with no reason, there is evidence for two thieves. One of which is dead. The other is very much alive and very willing to take what you have. I do not think it is wise to believe that you are safe. Even if one of us is lying for some reason, it's still better to be paranoid and assume another thief is out there even if one is not than to assume the one and only thief is dead and get lax and make things easier for the thief who is still alive.

[STINK he/him]

Eh, I feel this discussion isn't that useful. I mean yeah it would be nice to know if there is a second thief, but how about everyone just plans that their items (if any) are gonna be stolen and then if they are tells the thread that. Otherwise, we should just presume that there was just one Thief.

[Nyali she/her]

Nyali, that is indeed true. My target was the one who survived, and I'll reveal them, unless they reveal themselves before I do, this night.

 

On this note, is there any chance Maill could clarify what results in being notified (and what doesn't)? Like, do you get notified if someone protects you with a Painrial and someone tries to attack you with a Grandbow (or Ghostblood kill) and fails? Clearly, you get told when your Half-shard breaks, and I'd guess you'd get informed if your Shardplate is hit by a Shardblade or Grandbow/Ghostblood.

 

Also, if your action is redirected, do you get told it was redirected?

 

 

In the games I used to play, GMs gave no information at all except who died and what their loyalty and role were. Like, to use this game's roles as an example, if you shot someone with a Grandbow, but a Soulcaster redirected your action into someone who was protected by a Painrial, no one would get told anything. If someone with a Painknife blocked the Painrial from being used, then no one would be told anything, but in the writeup, the person the attack was redirected to would be dead, with the person who tried to protect them not knowing why their protection failed and the person who fired the Grandbow not knowing it was them who killed the person (but they would see that their target did not die, which could mean they were redirected, or that their target was protected and someone else killed the other person). If someone used an Emotion Bracelet on a target, but a Soulcaster redirected their action, they would be told one action performed by their new target, but wouldn't know they were redirected or who they were redirected to. If someone was redirected to someone who didn't take any action, they would be told the same exact thing as they would if they were Painknifed and were not able to use the Emotion Bracelet at all.

 

Clearly, things are done differently around here, but I'm not exactly sure how and can't find it written out anywhere.

[AliasSheep]

I disagree with all of this.

 

First, that breakdown is just pedantic for a game like this. Of course Maill isn't going to specify in the OP that there could be multiple thieves in the game. It's all based on distribution, which is all based on how many people sign up and how much of a troll Maill is feeling like at any given moment (hint: that's a lot. Maill often feels like a troll). 

 

If the number of thieves was going to vary based on player sign ups, wouldn't it make more sense to say that there would be "thief(ves)" or something alike to it?  This is, as far as I'm aware, the only time the quantity of any role or item was actually mentioned, so I see no reason to simply disregard it.

 

Labeling the thief win con as "thief" rather than "thieves" is also just a clearer way of saying that the thief is by himself. Regardless of how many thieves there are in the game--from one to twenty--each individual thief can only win by himself. He is neutral and cannot win with any other thief.

Hence that being the weakest point (I do actually agree with you on that interpretation).  My other two points stand.

 

Since we can't guess at his distribution, the best we can do is use what evidence we have to figure it out. If we accept that I am telling the truth about my one-cycle spanreed being stolen (which DC has corroborated by saying that Elk stole that one), and we accept that DC is in turn telling the truth that his spanreed was also stolen, and if we assume that a thief isn't going to steal an item twice with no reason, there is evidence for two thieves. One of which is dead. The other is very much alive and very willing to take what you have. I do not think it is wise to believe that you are safe. Even if one of us is lying for some reason, it's still better to be paranoid and assume another thief is out there even if one is not than to assume the one and only thief is dead and get lax and make things easier for the thief who is still alive.

But this requires accepting multiple assertions from various people, which I'm not prepared to do, especially for people that I've already stated I'm suspicious of.  In addition, saying the thief would have no reason for having a spanreed is a bit far, I can see them wanting to have private communications with people - building trust and finding out what items people have (the former serving the latter) are definitely going to be things the Thief is going to want.  A single night of communication is better than nothing, and definitely better than wasting a role action and getting nothing for it.

Edited May 2, 2016 by AliasSheep

[Elbereth she/her]

Elbereth is also putting up red flags to my instincts - I'll try to go through her posts and see why that might be - this could just be nothing useful, just quantum fluctuations in my suspicion-space. It might be something more. I'll come back to this later and see if I have anything substantive, or if this should be flagged as a false positive on my readings.

I don't even care that you're suspicious of me.The fact that you used the words "quantum fluctuations in my suspicion-space" just makes me really happy for some reason.

Nyali, that's not very standardized around here. In this game, I believe Maill's clarified that if you're redirected you will be notified who you were redirected to. In other games that hasn't been the case (LG16 is an excellent example of that). If you use a Painrial, you'll know if it succeeded becuase you won't be able to use it for a turn, because it has a cooldown. But I don't know if you'll be notified you've been attacked if you're protected.