Long Game 26: Cognitive Dissonance

[Amanuensis he/him]

That's a lot of text regarding me that I'm not going to respond to because you're basing most of it off of assumptions that aren't even true. I will make the following, entirely 100% true statements, however.

1. I look forward to when this game does end so I can show you every single PM I sent, and how not a single one of them even mentioned you, aside from Wonko telling me you're a Cognitive Being and Wax telling me you're Shasharra. (FYI, I've sent a total of... 3 PMs and received a total of 3. Yup. One to/from Wonko, one to/from Wax, one to /from Vivenna).
2. Bard was not Spiked when he threatened you the way he did, and in that PM you even told me that you didn't blame me for his reaction and that you didn't believe I shared his same perspective.
3. I did not bully Rae into revealing anything. She revealed that she was Bleeder and that she could be converted to our side after asking for the identity of Wax, who I know for a fact if he is attacked by Odium's Champion then I'm as good as dead. I told her that I would not trust a claimed eliminator unless they gave me a reason too, and asked she reveal only a single ally of hers and no one else because if she outed her entire team that would be incredibly unfun. She didn't have to listen. She could have easily lied. I never encouraged Rae to reveal. I was honestly surprised she even did. What do you really expect me to do in that situation? Give her a free Spike and tell her who Wax is, hoping it's not a trick?
4. I am not prolonging this game. I am one player of what... 27 that are still alive? The majority don't want to end it yet, and I personally don't care either way. As soon as Joe suicided just to make sure I couldn't achieve my second win con I stopped caring about victory. So don't you try to pin that on me.
5. There are only two Spiked I am aware have kill actions: Wonko and Wax. Wonko attacked Araris that same night you "claim" to be attacked twice. I haven't asked or heard of Wax attacking anyone, although I wouldn't be surprised if he's been acting on his own given the fact that he had an abnormally low amount of Investiture the other cycle despite the fact I keep empowering him, which is perfectly within his right to do as an individual, although I've yet to see proof of it.

The only reason I believe you are actually Independent right now and not actually a Hater trying to make me look bad is because of how angry you are about this. If it turns out you are one of them and are using emotion to make me feel guilty so you can get away with slandering me, then touche (because I am known for appealing to emotion), though I really won't be happy about it because I absolutely consider this a personal attack on me.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Amanuensis

[Haelbarde he/him]

So Aman, curious about what you did last cycle?

[Amanuensis he/him]

You're referring to an ability of mine called Drain Shard. It's a target local ability that if it targets a Shard it will drain 8 investiture from them, if it targets a Champion it will drain 4 investiture from their Shardlord, and if they're neither then it just informs them I attacked them with no ill-effects. Otherwise I empowered my Champion, burned Pewter, filled Tin, filled Duralumin and filled Chromium.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Amanuensis

[little wilson she/her]

Yes, because I would totally lie about having been attacked and drained of 14 of Investiture from those two attacks and then not talk in either the thread or the PM for 96 hours to uphold the facade of my being attacked. You got me. Amazing.

And you're right, I did say that I didn't blame you for Bard. I still don't blame you for Bard. I never said or indicated that I believed that Bard was Spiked when he did that or that he was acting under orders for it. But do not believe that there was a coordinated attack on me that you didn't have something to do with.

Oh, and thanks for publicly revealing my character. That's super appreciated.

[Silverblade5 he/him]

@little wilsonWhat would make the game fun for you again? I'm sorry that you feel this way. Currently, Taladin is basiclly a personal pm. If you come to Taladin, I'll try my best to help you out. Not with winning, but with making it fun again.

[little wilson she/her]

Oh, believe me, if I didn't wish to continue playing, I would've told Nyali that, yes, I would in fact like to be able to commit suicide. I think if I'd pressed the issue, she would've allowed it. The only way to change the current metagame, however stupid it is, is to play in it and encourage a change.

[Amanuensis he/him]

I didn't say you lied, I implied I don't believe you. I would apologize for not instantly believing every single thing every person says in Sanderson Elimination, but that's kinda the point of the game. If you've got a problem with me being the type of person who only takes information they can see themselves as absolute fact... then I really don't know what to tell you.

Well then you have the right to believe that. Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Not only is it impossible for me to send PMs during the Night, which is when you claimed to be [evil], but the fact that you claimed to be [evil] on a world with 14 other players should be explanation enough for why people might decide to attack you, especially given the fact you yourself have a win con that involves people with the [evil] tag having to die, as well as Bard and very likely some others.

If I said that Silverblade was Nazh, would that be revealing his role? No, it wouldn't, because even if I think that's what he is or what a third party told me, that doesn't make it true. You confirming it like that is revealing it. As an aside, the down votes are pretty childish, and this will be my last post this game. Feel free to lynch me. If you wish to discuss this further, I'm just a PM away.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Amanuensis

[Haelbarde he/him]

@Aman Well, glad I wasn't a Shard or Champion then.

Probably worth everyone knowing, Bugsy just picked up what is believed to be a Trellium Spike (it's definitely a spike anyway).

 

 

[little wilson she/her]

10 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I didn't say you lied, I implied I don't believe you. I would apologize for not instantly believing every single thing every person says in Sanderson Elimination, but that's kinda the point of the game. If you've got a problem with me being the type of person who only takes information they can see themselves as absolute fact... then I really don't know what to tell you.

Well then you have the right to believe that. Doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. Not only is it impossible for me to send PMs during the Night, which is when you claimed to be [evil], but the fact that you claimed to be [evil] on a world with 14 other players should be explanation enough for why people might decide to attack you, especially given the fact you yourself have a win con that involves people with the [evil] tag having to die, as well as Bard and very likely some others.

If I said that Silverblade was Nazh, would that be revealing his role? No, it wouldn't, because even if I think that's what he is or what a third party told me, that doesn't make it true. You confirming it like that is revealing it. As an aside, the down votes are pretty childish, and this will be my last post this game. Feel free to lynch me. If you wish to discuss this further, I'm just a PM away.

My Nightblood win con is just that Destroy Evil must be used 4 times. Those uses don't have to be successful. So no, an evil player does not have to die. And yes, I did indicate that at some point on Scadrial.

As an aside, your downvote on me was also childish, so I'm not sure you're the best judge.

[Silverblade5 he/him]

26 minutes ago, little wilson said:

Oh, believe me, if I didn't wish to continue playing, I would've told Nyali that, yes, I would in fact like to be able to commit suicide. I think if I'd pressed the issue, she would've allowed it. The only way to change the current metagame, however stupid it is, is to play in it and encourage a change.

That wasn't the question. What is the change you'd want to ecourage?

[Young Bard he/him]

 

1 hour ago, little wilson said:

As you all know, I was looking for a Lifeless, and whoever could get me a Lifeless I would help. I showed up to Scadrial as requested and Stink had dropped a Lifeless Squirrel on the ground, which meant that I could maintain my Independent nature (which is what I’d wanted to do in the first place) and get that Lifeless for myself. When I informed Scadrial of this, Bard immediately threatened me, telling me that he didn’t even want a Lifeless, but if he put in an order for it, it would cut my chances of getting it to half, and if others tried for it too, my chances of getting it would be even worse. He accused me of ruthless practicality (when really, I was just sticking to my freaking alignment) and said that he could be ruthlessly practical in return, by holding the Lifeless over my head and making me march like a marionette doll to their tune. To control me.

Clarification: When I wrote this, I had no idea how much scanning cost you, and your refusal to scan me sounded more selfish than anything else. And yes, I went so far as to threaten you with trying to take the Lifeless Squirrel if you didn't agree to scan me, something you've omitted both times now you've mentioned it in the thread. And yes, I do disagree with what I did then now, because it was very dictator-y and generally unfun. What's more, once you revealed what losing Investiture did, I backed off, because I hadn't heard of that mechanic before, and had no way of knowing until you told me.

1 hour ago, little wilson said:

What Happened on Scadrial

While I was on Scadrial, I informed everyone there of all three of my win cons, and told them about my Possess Lifeless action, what it meant, and how it might help. I told them that it cost a lot of Investiture (though I didn’t specify how much) and that it was the only win con I could do. I told them that my alignment is Independent [evil], but that I don’t know why I’m evil (I do not view this character as evil). I told them that once I completed that one win con, I would be perfectly happy sacrificing myself to someone who needs to kill an [evil] player as one of their win conditions. I just wanted that one win con.

 

And then I got attacked. Twice. This dropped me so low in Investiture that I couldn’t even talk in my world PM (speaking of, Araris, that item you were asking about in that PM was on Scadrial when I was there). Now I have to build my Investiture back up to have enough to use on that action to complete that single win con, assuming I don’t get attacked and dropped in Investiture again.

I'm honestly surprised at this - no-one on Scadrial gained anything by attacking you, just lynching/killing you. In fact, I'd kind of hoped that I'd be able to lead the lynch on you and then scan you accomplishing both my individual goals once you'd accomplished this, so delaying your win con actually hinders me. If 2 people attacked you (or one person twice), then I'm sorry about that, and I don't know why they'd do that. However, don't mistake the actions of the few for the actions of the many. This is the actions of 1 or 2 people, so blaming the whole of the Children for this is unfair. In fact, you don't know that the Children did this - it could just as easily be God's Own Hatred, the Ghostbloods, or other Independents.

1 hour ago, little wilson said:

You can claim that you’re playing this ruthlessly so the greatest number of people win, and that win should add to the fun, or whatever, but the game is horribly broken. All you’re doing right now is prolonging the misery for your opponents--people who it would take a miracle for them to win at this point. Now they have to wait until you decide the game should end. Sure, maybe they’ll continue to attempt to eek out a win, but Joe committed suicide. Do you honestly think Odium himself would’ve suicided if he thought his team had a shot? Highly unlikely. He suicided to at least keep one person from completing a win con. Bugsy did the same thing by voting for himself during the day. The Ghostbloods have lost 2 players and a third is publicly known (assuming they even have more than 3 players). Your opponents are beaten. End the game with dignity. Don’t drag it on and let your opponents get more and more irritated at the game. That’s called poor winning. If you’ve ever wondered what poor winners look like, they look like the Children. They look like Harmony.

Bugsy admitted he voted on himself to try and convince people not to vote for him in logic I can't quite follow. He's trying to stay alive right now, to complete a partial win con (which I'll talk about more in a moment), or else because he's lying and he thinks he has a chance of winning.

Which brings me to my next point - I tried to lynch Bugsy, but the mood was very much against it. Personally, I don't believe Bugsy's claim of being the only Eliminator left, and without the support to lynch Bugsy, the next best way is to find another Eliminator through the lynch to try and prove Bugsy's claim is a lie, which is why I attempted to lynch Sheep and then Dow. When I lynched them, (Dow in particular, since I wasn't even leading the lynch) I was aiming purely for my faction goal of destroying God's Own Hatred, not any attempt to prolong the game. Aman, so far as I can see, was after the same purpose, so I don't think it's fair to blame him either.

1 hour ago, little wilson said:

A Final Plea to the GM

This game is broken. Allowing partial wins to players who complete 2 of their win cons greatly favors those who are part of factions in a game that is already unbalanced towards those who are in a faction. It is unfair to Independents who have multiple win cons that they cannot hope to achieve. I ask that you reinstate the original win condition for the game: that players need to complete all of their win cons in order to win. We signed up for an all-or-nothing game. Changing it now shows favoritism towards a certain group of players. If you’re going to change it, you might as well just drop it to one win condition or even get rid of the individual win cons completely. Losing is simply part of the game. There was always a chance that this game would end with a mass loss for everyone. It might be best if that’s actually what happened, because all this is going to do is cause the people who never had a shot at completing all three win cons get mad at the people who had 2 easy win cons and one hard one. Do you really want the game to end with those kinds of negative feelings?

To the best of my knowledge, the partial win con is not GM endorsed - it will still count as a loss. However, people who have failed one of their win cons are striving to achieve the other 2 simply because the alternative - quitting the game and not doing anything else, would make the game dull for those who remain. So, while I agree with your sentiment that it should count as a loss officially, I'll say that you should still aim for those win cons you can still achieve anyway, because people can enjoy the game more that way.

I have a lot more to say, but I'm kind of doing several things at once and it would probably take me a couple hours at least to complete, so I'll post this now, and try to get around to the rest as soon as possible.

Oh, one last thing (I can't be bothered quoting): To me, 'Independent' is just someone who is not part of a faction, not that they are completely separate from what's going on in the rest of the game. If Independents were separate from the rest of the game, then it would be too easy for them to claim as such at the beginning of the game, and then be ignored. People who aren't in a Faction can still influence a faction, and change the course of the game according to the whims of the player and their win con, IMO.

27 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

As an aside, the down votes are pretty childish, and this will be my last post this game. Feel free to lynch me.

 

14 minutes ago, little wilson said:

As an aside, your downvote on me was also childish, so I'm not sure you're the best judge.

And I find something else to say...

Wilson, you're assuming that it was Aman that was downvoting you here, which is an assumption. I don't want to be condescending and tell everyone to calm down, but this thread is getting out of control, and I'm a hair's breadth away from calling the impartial mod in to try and sort something out. I don't want to end this game on a bitter note with the game being cut short due to masses of quitting over this.

1 minute ago, Silverblade5 said:

That wasn't the question. What is the change you'd want to ecourage?

I don't want to put words in Wilson's mouth, but I think she's considering the Village to be sore winners, selfishly acting for their own win cons and draining the fun out of the games in the process. I've responded to that further up in this post.

[Amanuensis he/him]

7 minutes ago, The Young Bard said:

 

 

 

Wilson, you're assuming that it was Aman that was downvoting you here, which is an assumption. I don't want to be condescending and tell everyone to calm down, but this thread is getting out of control, and I'm a hair's breadth away from calling the impartial mod in to try and sort something out. I don't want to end this game on a bitter note with the game being cut short due to masses of quitting over this.

I definitely downvoted her large post, which she saw because Mods can see who gives each post reputation. I'll justify it as the fact I really don't think it deserved an upvote, which is the intention of the system, and the fact that I saw the downvote on my response and I instantly assumed it was her. But that second reasoning is also childish. As Darrow au Andromedus taught me, death begets death begets death. The same thing applies to any form of negativity. It was wrong of me to perpetuate it by attempting to even the scale.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Amanuensis

[Wonko the Sane he/him]

Wilson, I'm very sorry that you've had a bad experience with this game, and I agree that many of the rules, while conceptually creative, are indeed very broken. Rules that can silence a player or allow a switch away from an open faction are detrimental to the game.

I've felt guilty for a while now that I have, as you say, two easy goals and one difficult one. That's part of the reason I'm pushing for a longer game -- I know others aren't in as good a position as I am. If you'll recall, most of my interaction with you this game has been me trying to find ways to help you toward your goals.

I think I can understand what leads you to believe it, but it nevertheless hurts a little that you would accuse me of mercenary intentions. Yes, I have a tendency to side with the Village if the opportunity presents itself. I enjoy the game more when I'm a Villager, and I'm better at it. So yeah, barring heavy incentives to the contrary, I'm going to do my best to be helpful to my fellow players. Is that such a negative playstyle?

All that being said, you have convinced me that it's time we ended the game. It would be possible to engineer more wins out of this situation, but you're right -- they would lack substance. This game has fallen apart due to a number of colluding factors (though I disagree that any specific players are to blame), and further play promises to be lifeless and mechanical.

Bugsy

Edited October 1, 2016 by Wonko the Sane

[little wilson she/her]

3 minutes ago, The Young Bard said:

Clarification: When I wrote this, I had no idea how much scanning cost you, and your refusal to scan me sounded more selfish than anything else. And yes, I went so far as to threaten you with trying to take the Lifeless Squirrel if you didn't agree to scan me, something you've omitted both times now you've mentioned it in the thread. And yes, I do disagree with what I did then now, because it was very dictator-y and generally unfun. What's more, once you revealed what losing Investiture did, I backed off, because I hadn't heard of that mechanic before, and had no way of knowing until you told me.

That's because I said in the thread that I would only scan people who got me a Lifeless. If I'd gotten a Lifeless from a Child (by a Child giving me their own Lifeless), I would've scanned you. If I'd gotten a Lifeless from GOH, I would've scanned whoever they wanted me to scan. I made that pretty clear in the thread before I worldhopped to Scadrial. There was a Lifeless on the ground. Therefore, I'm not getting a Lifeless from anyone. I'm getting a Lifeless for myself. By myself. That's on the ground. Therefore, per the arrangement that I set in the thread, I didn't have to scan you or anyone, and you demanding that I scan you was ridiculous since it wasn't part of the arrangement. This is why I said that you were seeing promises that I hadn't actually made.

 

Quote

I'm honestly surprised at this - no-one on Scadrial gained anything by attacking you, just lynching/killing you. In fact, I'd kind of hoped that I'd be able to lead the lynch on you and then scan you accomplishing both my individual goals once you'd accomplished this, so delaying your win con actually hinders me. If 2 people attacked you (or one person twice), then I'm sorry about that, and I don't know why they'd do that. However, don't mistake the actions of the few for the actions of the many. This is the actions of 1 or 2 people, so blaming the whole of the Children for this is unfair. In fact, you don't know that the Children did this - it could just as easily be God's Own Hatred, the Ghostbloods, or other Independents.

I really don't think it was GOH. I know others might not agree with me about this, but I don't think there were other GOH on Scadrial that cycle. You could be right about the Ghostbloods, though that would mean that team is bigger than we'd thought it was since Dalinar wasn't on Scadrial. As for other Independents....If they had a win con that involved killing an evil player or me specifically (if they guessed my role, which was theoretically possible by knowing that I was a Cognitive Being who had multiple win conditions involving Nalthis, so therefore was probably a Nalthian), I could potentially see it, but I would think they'd wait a cycle until after I possessed the Lifeless, since they knew by my comment that I would be very low on Investiture after doing that action. Therefore, it wouldn't take as much to kill me. Had they waited, I would've died to those two attacks. I would think that an Independent, since they're Independent and only have themselves (theoretically) to rely on, they'd be preserving their Investiture and using actions in the best way.

Unless they have a win con that's just to attack an evil player. I think someone (can't remember who) mentioned that they had a win con that was to be attacked, so I could potentially see a win con that's to attack players (doesn't necessarily have to result in a successful kill). Though that's an absurdly easy win condition.

Quote

Bugsy admitted he voted on himself to try and convince people not to vote for him in logic I can't quite follow. He's trying to stay alive right now, to complete a partial win con (which I'll talk about more in a moment), or else because he's lying and he thinks he has a chance of winning.

I read that vote as him also denying you your win con of leading the lynch on an evil player. I could be wrong about that, but that's how I read it. I do agree that he's trying to stay alive to complete his other win cons, but I think he was also trying to throw a wrench in your plans.

 

Quote

Which brings me to my next point - I tried to lynch Bugsy, but the mood was very much against it. Personally, I don't believe Bugsy's claim of being the only Eliminator left, and without the support to lynch Bugsy, the next best way is to find another Eliminator through the lynch to try and prove Bugsy's claim is a lie, which is why I attempted to lynch Sheep and then Dow. When I lynched them, (Dow in particular, since I wasn't even leading the lynch) I was aiming purely for my faction goal of destroying God's Own Hatred, not any attempt to prolong the game. Aman, so far as I can see, was after the same purpose, so I don't think it's fair to blame him either.

Yeah, I honestly don't get that. Either there are more GOH or there aren't. Rae's comments in the PM strongly indicates that there are moredon, even if there's only one more. Therefore lynching Bugsy wouldn't end the game. I will say, though, that whoever else is on the team is either inactive or close to, which would explain why Joe would suicide like he did. Yes, I'm betting most of my assumptions about this on Joe's suicide. He's not a player who just suicides for no good reason, or because he's under scrutiny. But if he felt he didn't have any hopes to win and staying alive helped his opponents? Yeah, he'd suicide in those circumstances. Almost undoubtedly. The question is why he felt he didn't have any hopes to win the game.

 

Quote

To the best of my knowledge, the partial win con is not GM endorsed - it will still count as a loss. However, people who have failed one of their win cons are striving to achieve the other 2 simply because the alternative - quitting the game and not doing anything else, would make the game dull for those who remain. So, while I agree with your sentiment that it should count as a loss officially, I'll say that you should still aim for those win cons you can still achieve anyway, because people can enjoy the game more that way.

I had been told that someone guilted Nyali into granting a partial win to those who completed only 2 of their win cons. If this isn't GM-endorsed, then great. But my concern is that it is GM-endorsed, and therefore, it does favor a certain set of people.

 

Quote

Oh, one last thing (I can't be bothered quoting): To me, 'Independent' is just someone who is not part of a faction, not that they are completely separate from what's going on in the rest of the game. If Independents were separate from the rest of the game, then it would be too easy for them to claim as such at the beginning of the game, and then be ignored. People who aren't in a Faction can still influence a faction, and change the course of the game according to the whims of the player and their win con, IMO.

Well, yes. Every player plays different alignments differently. There are those who side with villagers as neutrals and those who side with eliminators as neutrals. There are those who help both equally. There are those who play chaotically or according to their whims. It's more just that, to me, the win conditions of "Independents" shouldn't be ones that are inherently reliant on others. That doesn't mean they have to be ones that the Independent can do purely and entirely by themselves without involving anyone else at all, but they should at least be in the power or control of the Independent to do. I'm not sure about the win cons of other Independents in the game, but most of mine are not ones that I have control over (as already stated). I've no idea who Denth or Vasher are (though I kind of suspect that Denth might be GOH, if GOH was selected at least partly by Homeworld), and while I at least have a scanning ability that could help me find one or both of them, that doesn't really help me in the actual completion of that win con.

 

Quote

I don't want to put words in Wilson's mouth, but I think she's considering the Village to be sore winners, selfishly acting for their own win cons and draining the fun out of the games in the process. I've responded to that further up in this post.

It's not about this game specifically. It's more just about the metagame as a whole, and that spans across games. My issue here is in regard to fun. There's been too much competitiveness and aggression in the games lately (and I'm not innocent in this either. I tend to respond to aggression with aggression, and I don't particularly like aggressive!Wilson, so when that happens, I take note of it and try to figure out why). Obviously the competitive aspect of the game will always be there but it shouldn't be there at the sake of fun. Fun should always be the priority. Not just for you but for all players in the game, even those who are your opponents.

21 minutes ago, Wonko the Sane said:

Wilson, I'm very sorry that you've had a bad experience with this game, and I agree that many of the rules, while conceptually creative, are indeed very broken. Rules that can silence a player or allow a switch away from an open faction are detrimental to the game.

I've felt guilty for a while now that I have, as you say, two easy goals and one difficult one. That's part of the reason I'm pushing for a longer game -- I know others aren't in as good a position as I am. If you'll recall, most of my interaction with you this game has been me trying to find ways to help you toward your goals.

I think I can understand what leads you to believe it, but it nevertheless hurts a little that you would accuse me of mercenary intentions. Yes, I have a tendency to side with the Village if the opportunity presents itself. I enjoy the game more when I'm a Villager, and I'm better at it. So yeah, barring heavy incentives to the contrary, I'm going to do my best to be helpful to my fellow players. Is that such a negative playstyle?

All that being said, you have convinced me that it's time we ended the game. It would be possible to engineer more wins out of this situation, but you're right -- they would lack substance. This game has fallen apart due to a number of colluding factors (though I disagree that any specific players are to blame), and further play promises to be lifeless and mechanical.

Bugsy

It's not a negative playstyle. It's just the way you play neutrals. If you ask Stink or basically anyone who's been a neutral in a game I'm playing, I'm very opinionated about how neutrals should be played, and that's that they shouldn't take sides because it can mess with the balance of the game. If they're going to help one side, they should help the other. But not everyone feels the same way. I know a fair number of players who think that it's impossible to play a neutral without taking a specific side at some point. So that's just a difference of opinion. It's not meant as a condemnation, though I will say that since most game breaks are in the direction of the village (as in, the village has the advantage), when neutrals come into play and they default to helping the village, it offsets the balance even more in favor of the village. But the game being broken isn't the neutral's fault (I don't really think it's the GM's either. A lot of breaks you can't really know about until the game is play-tested), so...yeah.

And it's not so much that I think lynching Bugsy will end the game. I don't think it will. It's more that the avoidance of lynching Bugsy on the off-chance that it ends the game is just...wrong. If there was another certain GOH, then that would be one thing. But avoiding him and then grasping at straws to find another person to lynch who might be, but there's literally no evidence to support it... I can't agree with that. I can see why people want to prolong the game to get more people to win, but quite honestly, if there was a way for me to complete all of my win cons, but it meant keeping the last eliminator alive for another 3 cycles, I would say kill the eliminator because it's not worth prolonging the misery for them just so I can win. I haven't been an eliminator in that exact situation, but I was an eliminator in a horribly broken game where all of my teammates died within 3 cycles of each other and it was me left standing for another 3 cycles, knowing that there was no way I could win. I can only imagine what it would've been like if the village had known that I was evil, and decided to keep me alive so they could try to get ahead of the other village faction. I probably would've killed myself one night just to spite them. Though, they also probably would've been roleblocking me to stop me from doing exactly that. Which would've been even more irritating. While that's not quite what's going on here, it feels close. Too close for me to feel comfortable with it, anyway.

[Darkness Ascendant he/him]

Don't bother lynching anyone.

[Straw he/him]

I want this game to end. Bugsy.

[Silverblade5 he/him]

Bugsy Anyone know what planet he's on?

[Stick. she/her]

There goes my water bottle. 

2 hours ago, Silverblade5 said:

Bugsy Anyone know what planet he's on?

He's on Sel. He said so last cycle

Edit: I just checked up on the previous night, and since I can't quote from closed threads:

Sart said:

Something about this seems odd. How exactly does meeting Stick help Bugsy win? Moreover, what are your goals? Way back on Cycle 1, Stick claimed that he needed to help 3 Independents with their goals. I didn't think much of it at the time, but I'm beginning to suspect it was a fishing exercise. We know Bugsy is claiming to be Lady Sequence, and that was supported by Joe. So, my question is, what character would Lady Sequence need to meet for a win-con, that also has a history of supporting independents? I'm a bit stumped on this one, which is why I think Stick might be another member of God's Own Hate.

Meeting with me doesn't help Bugsy with his goals, but me with mine. I'm pretty sure Bugsy mentioned earlier that we were supposed to have a trade but he didnt fulfil his part of it (he owes me a water bottle). He could've met up with me on Nalthis (where I was since C1) but he chose Sel for some reason of his own.

 

Lopen said:

It looked more like Bugsy wants to be in Sel for his win con rather than needing to meet up with Stick specifically. Stick has also claimed her role too, and if she's telling the truth, she's not on GoH I wouldn't think. Has she claimed in the thread already? I thought she did...

Yes, that's true, I did claim my role in one of the previous cycles.  I'm Lift, Independant. Which is why I need food.

 

---

Edited October 1, 2016 by I_am_a_Stick

[Nyali she/her]

The rule about a partial win has been there since before the game began. I put it in before posting the sign up thread because I was worried players would go inactive of they failed one goal. If that was a mistake, I sincerely apologize, but the only rule changes since the game was posted were the two changes to Research abilities which were both absolutely necessary, and two players gained abilities I forgot to include but meant to and, without them, their win cons were literally impossible.

The only other change made was that I gave everyone a progress update on their goals last night. You can find those in your role PM OPs. (If I missed you or the update is a night out of date, I'm sorry, that was not intentional.) I was finding goal tracking the way I had originally planned to be too difficult and figured people would appreciate knowing their progress anyway.

If someone is not enjoying the game, feels a rule or ruling needs to be changed, or is otherwise upset, please feel free to contact myself, Elbereth, and Alvron. We are more than willing to do what we can to rectify the situation.

[Bugsy he/him]

So, the side win con I was trying for is to make 4 spikes by harvesting corpses of the dead. I was unable to harvest Mage's body C1 and just failed to harvest Rae's last cycle, so I still have 0/4 of the spikes I need. I came to Sel hoping to make a spike from Dow, but I probably won't live long enough to make the rest, so it's kind of pointless (no pun intended). I'm ok with being killed at this point, honestly. Those of you interested in prolonging the game, I'm actually not the last GoH, so there's no real reason to worry. If it's fine with you, though, I'd like to live 1 more cycle so I can pass the bottle of water to Stick (I'd feel bad if it disappears on my death). Oh, and Nyali, I for one still having fun, so don't worry too much about the game. It seems like it had a huge degree of thought and effort go into it, and bravo on keeping up with the GMing so well.

As for my voting on myself, Bard, I knew it would screw up your win con vote on me after that, so you'd try to lead the lynch on someone else. That was pretty much the entire strategy of that vote.

Wilson, I can confirm that GoH didn't attack you that night. One of my goals requires me to kill Wax, Marasi, or MeLaan and end the game with the BoM, but that's the only "kill specific person" goal I've been informed of by my living teammates, so we would have literally no reason to even if we had the opportunity. 

As for the spike I picked up, it's self use only, and I wasn't told the requirements of use or the effects. It has high investiture levels and unknown origin, but that's all I know about it

Edited October 1, 2016 by Bugsy6912

[Mint11 she/her]

12 hours ago, little wilson said:

When you start treating the game like a competition and that everything is about that win and nothing else matters, you suck the fun out of the game for everyone. Except those who are taking it just as competitively as yourself. But if it’s all just a competition, are you actually having fun? Is the game worth playing if you’re not having fun? No. It’s not. Games are supposed to be fun. Competitiveness is not fun. If you want brutal honesty, I have no desire to play with most of the Children (and the Independents who are ruthlessly helping the Children out like this) ever again. Because you’re not playing for fun. You’re playing to compete. And that gives the game an entirely different atmosphere that is distinctly unenjoyable.

I don't think this is fair. For some people, playing to compete is fun. That kind of atmosphere is enjoyable to them. Don't get me wrong, anyone who isn't having fun should speak up, and we should all try and do something about that. But you can't treat this as a black and white moral issue where a very competitive environment is wrong in and of itself.

9 hours ago, little wilson said:

And it's not so much that I think lynching Bugsy will end the game. I don't think it will. It's more that the avoidance of lynching Bugsy on the off-chance that it ends the game is just...wrong. If there was another certain GOH, then that would be one thing. But avoiding him and then grasping at straws to find another person to lynch who might be, but there's literally no evidence to support it... I can't agree with that. I can see why people want to prolong the game to get more people to win, but quite honestly, if there was a way for me to complete all of my win cons, but it meant keeping the last eliminator alive for another 3 cycles, I would say kill the eliminator because it's not worth prolonging the misery for them just so I can win. I haven't been an eliminator in that exact situation, but I was an eliminator in a horribly broken game where all of my teammates died within 3 cycles of each other and it was me left standing for another 3 cycles, knowing that there was no way I could win. I can only imagine what it would've been like if the village had known that I was evil, and decided to keep me alive so they could try to get ahead of the other village faction. I probably would've killed myself one night just to spite them. Though, they also probably would've been roleblocking me to stop me from doing exactly that. Which would've been even more irritating. While that's not quite what's going on here, it feels close. Too close for me to feel comfortable with it, anyway.

I hadn't considered this. It's a fair point, but at the same time... is this "prolonging misery"? Whether or not we killed Bugsy now or later, he still loses. The only difference is that in one case, everyone loses, and in the other case, a few others may get to win. In this type of scenario, we'd need to take into account the feelings of the specific eliminator.

 

And since we're on the topic of fun and good sportsmanship, I'll mention that there is one thing about the game that has bothered me. It's the attitude "if I can't win, I'll stop others from winning." It hasn't been the attitude of all players (I don't even think it applies to most players) but it's there. Though it doesn't bother me enough to completely ruin the game for me. I was still having fun.

 

For the record, I don't think Wilson is lying about being attacked. I know I haven't been around long, but she doesn't seem like the type of player who would favor complex deceit. Although I also wouldn't be surprised if those who attacked Wilson weren't Children.

[Sart he/him]

I think my gambit worked too well. Wilson, I was one of the people who attacked you two nights ago.

When I realized how much the Spiked had this game in the bag, I decided to take action. I'm a Neutral player, so I don't care who wins. However, I wanted the game to be more fun, and I wanted to give the Evil players a better chance. At first, I was going to attack a Spiked to lower their numbers. There was a problem though. My character is a Pacifist. I'm not allowed to use any kill actions on anyone other than Cognitive Shadows. So, I wasn't planning on doing anything drastic, and was just protecting myself.

Then you revealed that you were a Neutral Cognitive Shadow, and I formed a new plan. If I could form a rift between the Neutrals and the Spiked, that would serve to re-balance the game, and create mass chaos in thread. I knew you were still sore about Bard's actions, so an attack would put you on edge. I was hoping that you would still be able to talk in thread, and support my call for a revolution, believing that a Spiked had targeted you. I deliberately tried to awaken the Bloodthirsty Goddess. The worst case scenario, in my mind, was that you would simply die. That wouldn't be ideal, but it could still work as a catalyst.

Unfortunately, you were attacked twice and couldn't convey it. My calls for a revolution puttered out and died, since Aman was helping the Independents with their goals. The thread continued to stagnate. I abandoned the revolution, voting on Dowanx to make sure the Children didn't win. I believed that my attacked had failed, thinking you had protected yourself.

And now we're here. I've managed to get Wilson and Aman at each others throats. That's what I intended, but I didn't want it to be like this. I wanted to make the game more fun, not make people want to quit the game. Everyone's getting mad at each other, and it's mostly my fault. This wasn't even to satisfy one of my win-cons. I've been poisoned (possibly by the Spiked) so my actions are limited, but I'm confident I can get a partial win. It's up to the thread what they want to do. Bugsy is apparently not the last of God's Own Hate, so we can lynch him, and help put the Children one step closer to victory. We could vote for Aman and try to rebalance the game so it is more fun for both sides. You could even vote for me, since I'm the one who started this whole mess. It's up to you.

[Straw he/him]

In the interest of balancing the game and making this more fun for everyone: Bugsy Aman.

[Paranoid King he/him]

Poisonally, I can't complete one of my goals. I was a bit upset about it last turn, and voted to kill Bugsy, which would have... well, it would have killed one of Odium's followers. (everyone's agreed that there's more, right?) But I've decided to be a bit more mature about it, and have made up a new goal for myself based on my character.

I want to collect all the hats.

I'm willing to trade information or items (possibly even abilities) in order to get all the hats. For example, I can vote twice on someone to have it count twice. All I want in exchange for this is a hat. Hats don't do anything, so I feel that this is a fairly good trade for anyone concerned.

I'm doing this because otherwise, I have nothing to do this game. I've really enjoyed this game. I like the abilities, the roles, and the goal mechanic. I feel like goals should be a bit harder to permanently fail, but that's no fault of the GMs. This is the first running of a massive game, and there are bound to be a few problems. But I want to make the game as fun as it can be, so that we might get a rerun sometime in the future.

22 hours ago, little wilson said:

*long but perfectly justified rant*

This is tough. I understand that, mate. Take a deep breath. You want a hat? They're important to me, but I see that you need them more than I do. Need some info? I got lots, and but can't send some to you without being in the same world as you. Not everyone's against you. But if you need someone to blame, I predicted that you would be attacked in cycle 2 and didn't tell you. You can even give me some downvotes if you like. I have plenty to spare.

21 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

The down votes are pretty childish, and this will be my last post this game. Feel free to lynch me. If you wish to discuss this further, I'm just a PM away.

Adavantos, don't fault Wilson for this. Wilson was attacked for no apparent reason. She needs someone to blame. I know I would need someone to blame if it had happened to me. Don't make a big deal out of this. Don't ruin your reputation as the influence that controls SE. Trade hats or something. Finish the game and move on. It doesn't have to be a big deal. Take some upvotes if it makes you happy.

 

This game may have slowed down. That's okay. Take a break for a bit. If something unfair has happened, don't take it personally. I'm going to make the game fun for me, and I recommend that you do the same. For those of you that have impossible goals, do them! If you try, you might complete them. (You probably won't, but who knows?) But if you don't try, then you'll never be able to boast about how close you got.

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Paranoid King
I read my GM PM.

[Mint11 she/her]

32 minutes ago, Paranoid King said:

I want to collect all the hats.

Well this is brilliant, because I have a lot of hats.