DrakeMarshall he/him Posted April 1, 2017 Posted April 1, 2017 3 hours ago, Elenion said: Ising the being of two votes having the casting by Drake. Ising intentional? @OrlokTsubodai Wait I got two votes? Lolz... Cool. Not that either of them particularly mattered. And... Anyone see any vote manips? I'm not seeing any obvious ones. Guess that means it doesn't prove I'm not a rioter. Ah well, there's always next cycle. Anyways... Stating the obvious, but there's going to be a conversion tonight. Or, perhaps I should say a conversion is extremely likely. I'd bet most people playing inquisitor would convert at least one person. So... Prepare to deal with a new elim next cycle I guess? I'm not sure I have any leads I see worth discussing at the moment. On the bright side, if my read of the rules is correct, it means a roleless village player will snap and become a misting. So this isn't a total loss for the village.
Ecthelion III he/him Posted April 1, 2017 Posted April 1, 2017 Cursory analysis once again reveals Elenion (and quite a few others) seemingly blindingly following bandwagons. Sigh. 1
Elenion he/him Posted April 1, 2017 Posted April 1, 2017 A vote in a (considered) bandwagon ising the ising of better than a vote that wasing the not of being cast.
little wilson she/her Posted April 1, 2017 Posted April 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Drake Marshall said: On the bright side, if my read of the rules is correct, it means a roleless village player will snap and become a misting. So this isn't a total loss for the village. I believe this is only the case if the converted player was a Misting themselves. There's always a slight chance a person will snap (if the snapping rules are the same as LG 2). But the only time it's guaranteed for someone to snap is if a Misting is converted, since they lose their original power. I believe there's a 75% chance the snapped will get the converted's' former ability and a 25% chance they'll get something else.
DeTess she/her Posted April 1, 2017 Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) Okay, so there has been no vote manipulation going on this cycle, if I'm not terribly mistaken. This lends some credence to the idea that the inquisitor had been responsible for at least part of the vote manipulation last cycle, because I'd expect some villager vote manipulation to have been present again, if only on unimportant votes, to prove that it was not an inquisitor meddling. The magister carried the lifeless body of the first victim of the Keeper’s gallows down to the crypt. He had seen one or two people look at him in surprise as he took the duty on him, and he’d again given a short speech on the important of maintaining civility. In truth, it served his purpose to have the bodies of the dead neatly brought together each day. If whoever had attacked Lady Renaud where to come after him, it would be best to have a cache of replacement bones neatly gathered together. Agemtsar had some time to think as he brought the body to the crypt and laid it to rest. There most certainly was a killer among them. Maybe even more than one, and if he wanted to get out of this situation without the inconvenience of another unplanned change of bones, he’d have to find out who it was. The Keeper had certainly aroused his suspicion, with his enthusiasm for the whole situation. He’d watch for now, and direct the mob towards this man if he could verify his suspicions. So, yeah, @Herowannabe. There has been something about his posts starting N1 that made me suspicious. A more critical rereading of his posts has proven to me that I don't really have a clue regarding his alignment . I'll present my reasoning below, so that other people can judge themselves. So, on day 1, he kept mostly to roleplay. He also introduced the contribution crusade to those unfamiliar with the concept. He had one post in which he expressed his views on a D1 lynch and gave some very general piecesof advice. So far, so alignment unindicative. He starts N1 by accusing Amanuensis and Droughtbringer, basing his reasoning on the vote manipulation that occurred and his belief that the inquisitor would do his best to secure a D1 lynch. His reasoning here is somewhat odd, as the last thing the inquisitor would want to do at this point is attract attention to himself with such a blatant move to secure a lynch. It would be far more likely the inquisitor would use his powers to frame others, instead of risking to stand out himself. He retracts his suspicion somewhat in his next post, after I quote Orlok's response to my question regarding the inquisitor's action economy. Orlok's response had been placed about halfway through the first day, but Hero's last post that cycle had been about 1.5 hours before Orlok's response, so he could genuinely have missed that. He also states the following, which he later uses to justify a vote on Mark: Quote I thought I made it clear, but apparently not. Regardless of what the village wanted for day 1, the Inquisitor certainly wanted a lynch. The Inquisitor gains nothing from a no-lynch situation Day 1. So whether it vote-manipped or simply cast a vote, it probably would have wanted to do something to help ensure that a lynch went through. Maybe it was amanuensis or Drought and cast a vote on Sart to help see it through. Maybe it has some sort of uber-Brass that automatically soothes whoever it votes for, and it was @Mark IV voting on Ecthelion to sooth his vote away from him and make it more likely one of the other lynch candidates would die. In this, he comes up with a rather inventive version of uber-brass. Given that the previous uber-metals where powerful, but not particularly out-there, this suggested function of the metal is rather surprising. It surprises me even more that Hero thinks this possible function is likely enough to justify a vote on Mark during the next day cycle. During the day, when he places his vote, he gets called out on this reasoning by me and Mark, but he doesn't explain further why he thingks Mark is particularly suspicious, and maintains the vote until the end of the cycle. He has made one more post on day 2, from which I've taken the following excerpt: Quote @Kipper and @Drake Marshall, you are forgetting another reason why the inquisitor might have decided to kill Aman: to Troll him. There are a number of players who would happily throw Aman's challenge back in his face like that and thank him for the free conversion. I even had one person say that he would do as much in a PM, though I don't suspect him of being the inquisitor. Personally, I would have taken Aman up on the challenge. It seems that whenever we play together he always ends up suspicious of me (sometimes rightly so), and I would love taking him on and trying to outwit him. For a few cycles at least. He states two things of note. First, that Amanuensis apparently always becomes suspicious of him at some point, and that the fact that amanuensis got killed should clear him of being the inquisitor, because he'd have liked a battle of wits. The first statement could be part of his reasons for throwing suspicion at Aman during N1, as making Aman look suspicious early could help him defend from later suspicion by Aman. This course of action would only really make sense if he's the inquisitor though. Regarding the second statement, I'd just like to say that I don't expect the inquistor to admit to being likely to kill Aman in that situation. Inf act, I've been expecting the inquisitor to present some kind of reasoning along those lines ("Look guys, I can't be the inquisitor, because I'd have take Aman's challenge.") The other point of interest is that he states he suspects Drought too, without giving further explanation, but he also reminds us that there might be a legit reason for him not posting as much. Statements of suspicion without explanation always make me suspicious, and the way he did it would allow him to join a later lynch on Drought, while at the same time seeming to push back against that lynch in case drought gets lynched this cycle, which would make him appear village (because he tried to safe another villager). Anyway, as I said in the beginning, I'm not certain about Hero's alignment, despite the reasons for him possibly being an elim I've listed here. The reason I'm not certain is that these small, possibly suspicious, acts are the best I've been able to find, and though they seem suspicious, none of them is definite proof. If you (yes, you, whoever is currently reading this) have time, maybe look over Hero yourself, and check if I'm just being paranoid, or there is actually something off about him. Edited April 1, 2017 by randuir
Elenion he/him Posted April 1, 2017 Posted April 1, 2017 Regarding your assertion that the Inquisitor would likely claim that they would have accepted Aman's challenge had they been evil, I think you're wrong in that respect. So far hasing the being of two players who have said that they would have taken Aman's challenge: Hero and I. Hero's claim seems consistent with what I've observed of his playstyle (he went all of AG3 hinting at his alignment in RP), and Elbereth and Mark can attest that I made comments regarding my enjoyment of challenges like this one in PMs during Awakening at the House on the Hill. So of the two people who have claimed that, I know I'm telling the truth and think Hero is too.
DeTess she/her Posted April 1, 2017 Posted April 1, 2017 9 minutes ago, Elenion said: Regarding your assertion that the Inquisitor would likely claim that they would have accepted Aman's challenge had they been evil, I think you're wrong in that respect. So far hasing the being of two players who have said that they would have taken Aman's challenge: Hero and I. Hero's claim seems consistent with what I've observed of his playstyle (he went all of AG3 hinting at his alignment in RP), and Elbereth and Mark can attest that I made comments regarding my enjoyment of challenges like this one in PMs during Awakening at the House on the Hill. So of the two people who have claimed that, I know I'm telling the truth and think Hero is too. This is why I asked others for input. I don't have enough experience with other people's playstyle to be able to accurately judge things like that. I've seen enough of your playstyle to think you're probably not lying, so I'll take your word on it regarding Hero.
Orlok Tsubodai Posted April 1, 2017 Author Posted April 1, 2017 (edited) LG30: Day three - Roll of the Dice Dear Lebochevkowski, We are sorry to inform you of your death, but we could not stop it without breaking the rules of the test. Fortunately for you, this is not completely the end. Our Scientists can make it so that your spirit lives on, though we’ve locked it into a special container. Discuss only with fellow spirits! Enjoy the not-quite-so-after-life, The Protector Dear __________ So, apparently none of you can stop this death thing that’s spreading around the town. Which is a shame, seeing as you’re all meant to at least have one thing special about you. Gonna have to ask the researchers if any of you actually have any brains, or just sit around waiting for something to happen. Either way, someone has to win in the end, right? Right? Sincerely, The Sword Dalinar died! He was a Village Coppercloud! A conversion occurred! Someone Snapped!Tineye message:SEA 2:4“Ofralllilluminationrwhichnhumanrreason cansgive,snoneaisrcomparablelto therdiscoverylof whatrwenare,roursroles,sour loyalties,awhatrfeatslofrtrickerynwe arercapablesof,sandawhatrwe willldorinnorderrtosdrive thesspikedaout.”rConclusion:ldiscussrmore!Tineye message: Tineye message: This is not a Secret tineye code message. Day 3 has begun. You have 48 hours to decide who to lynch. Player List 1. Arinian - Alrin 2. Hemalurgic Headshot - Quinn 3. Jondesu - Remart 4. Elenion - Roger Elariel 5. Drake Marshall - Serray 6. Darkness Ascendant - The Phantom Stranger 7. Randuir - Magister Agemtsar 8. Magestar - David Agemtsar 9. Herowannabe - Herwynbe 10. Yitzi2 - Garshin 11. Metacognition 12. Silverblade5 - Ryth 13: Arraenae - Rhea 14. TheMightyLopen - Sidon 15. little wilson - Willie Klara 16. Droughtbringer - You - Regular Crewmember 17. Iamspartacus - Astrid the Bold 18. Ornstein - Winkleton 19. Araris Valerian - Wol 20. Dalinar Kholin - Lebochevkowski - Village Coppercloud 21. OmeGaster - Rieyun 22. Kipper - Elenion 23. Sart - Gaetan - Regular Crewmember 24. Bugsy - Jelwynd 25. Figberts - Quond 26. Mark IV - The Follower 27. Manukos - Reval 28. Aonar Faileas - Vana Izenry 29. Ecthelion - Amnar 30. Amanuensis - Mykal - Village Smoker Edited April 3, 2017 by Alvron 4
Hemalurgic Headshot he/him Posted April 1, 2017 Posted April 1, 2017 Ooh, some converted AND someone snapped. It'll be hard to single out the converted now... Orlok, are you trolling us?
Arraenae Posted April 1, 2017 Posted April 1, 2017 We've got two Tineye messages this time. I think we have at least one Tineye. The other message is either from a Tineye who didn't send in a message N1 or a Mistborn.
Jondesu he/him Posted April 1, 2017 Posted April 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Hemalurgic_Headshot said: Ooh, some converted AND someone snapped. It'll be hard to single out the converted now... Orlok, are you trolling us? I expect that means that the person who was converted was a Coppercloud, so a new one has been snapped to make up for that. I think that was discussed during the night cycle in fact.
Aonar he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hemalurgic_Headshot said: Ooh, some converted AND someone snapped. It'll be hard to single out the converted now... Orlok, are you trolling us? 13 minutes ago, Jondesu said: I expect that means that the person who was converted was a Coppercloud, so a new one has been snapped to make up for that. I think that was discussed during the night cycle in fact. Umm, guys. This is a part of the rules. Whenever someone is Converted, an Unsnapped has a 78% chance of gaining the role the person Converted used to have, with the remaining chance being the odds of gaining a random other misting power. We do not know the new role of the person who Snapped, or the original role of the person who was converted at this point in time, unless you are suggesting you gained Copper from this Jon, which would be at least somewhat suspicious, given that Aman had Copper. Although it does seem there are a number of Copper mistings this game. Likewise, we do not know whether or not whoever was converted has Copper or not, as there is a chance for that to fail. Edited April 2, 2017 by Aonar Faileas 2
Jondesu he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 Thanks, Aonar, I didn't go back and double check that, I'm on mobile and didn't spend time on it. I was neither converted, nor did I snap, btw.
Arraenae Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, Jondesu said: Thanks, Aonar, I didn't go back and double check that, I'm on mobile and didn't spend time on it. I was neither converted, nor did I snap, btw. You do know that we can't exactly take your word for that, right?
Jondesu he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, Arraenae said: You do know that we can't exactly take your word for that, right? Well. Duh. Doesn't mean I won't say it.
Arraenae Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 It looks like Meta has gone inactive. I sent him a PM. No response. He hasn't even opened it. His profile says that the last time he was on this website was Thursday 11:37 PDT. Last Night started Friday 3:00 PM PDT for me. I don't think Meta could send an order without getting onto this site, so he definitely can't be the Inquisitor.
Aonar he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 Unless he knew he wasn't going to be around and put an order in in advance. Which, while perhaps not likely, is possible. (And he could always have been converted.) I am surprised how inactive Meta has been, though. However, at this point I do think it's safe to say there's no way Spartacus can be the Inquisitor though. So while the Crusade is nice and all, can we please lynch a player that gives us actual information this turn?
Jondesu he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 Thanks, Rae. I'd be all for a coinshot taking either of them out, or we can lynch them in the name of the Crusade if we truly have no other suspicions, but it does seem like it'd be a waste. If I were the Inquisitor, it does occur to me that there might be some logic in converting an inactive, but I doubt I'd do that the first time. I'll try to put together more along with a reasonable suspicion vote, but it'll have to be in the morning probably.
Arraenae Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 Rhea woke up to unfamiliar surroundings again. She groaned and sat up. By the Lord Ruler, her head hurt. Several corpses were lying on the ground around her. No, not corpses. Their chests rose and fell, so they were definitely breathing. They had to be sleeping. Around the sleeping bodies, some people were standing up. Maybe they had been kidnapped, just like her. Rhea felt around for her purse and breathed a sigh of relief. It was still there. Now she had to figure out who had kidnapped her, how to escape, and how to reach Lord Tekiel. Hopefully, she wasn't late for whatever event his invitation had been for. She stood up and approached someone. "Excuse me, why was I kidnapped?" Rhea asked.
TheMightyLopen he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Aonar Faileas said: Unless he knew he wasn't going to be around and put an order in in advance. Which, while perhaps not likely, is possible. (And he could always have been converted.) I am surprised how inactive Meta has been, though. However, at this point I do think it's safe to say there's no way Spartacus can be the Inquisitor though. So while the Crusade is nice and all, can we please lynch a player that gives us actual information this turn? He probably saw that I posted online times last cycle, then decided to stay offline this Night Turn and put an order in in advance like you said so players wouldn't trust using online times in future games to determine innocence/guilt. Sounds like a Meta thing to do after all. (I'm mostly kidding, though I don't think I'd clear him on the off chance he did send in an advance order for whatever reason) Agreed. It helps when you vote though Aonar. Why leave it up to the rest of us? Edit: Praise the Ja! Edited April 2, 2017 by TheMightyLopen
Aonar he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, TheMightyLopen said: He probably saw that I posted online times last cycle, then decided to stay offline this Night Turn and put an order in in advance like you said so players wouldn't trust using online times in future games to determine innocence/guilt. Sounds like a Meta thing to do after all. (I'm mostly kidding, though I don't think I'd clear him on the off chance he did send in an advance order for whatever reason) Agreed. It helps when you vote though Aonar. Why leave it up to the rest of us? Because you guys have to do some of the work. I mean, come on, you can't expect me to do everything. If I have to: To be honest, I am mildly suspicious of Kipper and.... Randuir? (I think? Need to look over the last day, since I really only skimmed it as it was happening.) for Reasons* but in absence of the ability desire motivation to currently elaborate on said reasons instead of sleep, I don't really feel as if I can vote for either of them, as it won't really generate useful discussion. *Not good ones. But ones that I'll probably explain some time when it isn't 11:00 at night and my back hurts less. I might even place a vote then, too. Edited April 2, 2017 by Aonar Faileas
TheMightyLopen he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Aonar Faileas said: Because you guys have to do some of the work. I mean, come on, you can't expect me to do everything. If I have to: To be honest, I am mildly suspicious of Kipper and.... Randuir? (I think? Need to look over the last day, since I really only skimmed it as it was happening.) for Reasons* but in absence of the ability desire motivation to currently elaborate on said reasons instead of sleep, I don't really feel as if I can vote for him, as it won't really generate useful discussion. *Not good ones. But ones that I'll probably explain some time when it isn't 11:00 at night and my back hurts less. I might even place a vote then, too. Y'know, if you respond so fast, I can't just leave my vote on you. Aonar, sounds good. Bugsy is next on the list(a very real list that exists). Any suspicions? Just putting this out there, but the fact that someone Snapped means it's fairly likely the converted player was a Misting, correct? I mean, it's possible that it was just a random Snapping, but it's a higher chance that it was caused by the conversion, I think. Does this mean the player who Snapped should tell someone what role they got so we can try and figure out who lost their role? I'm not sure how many players have roleclaimed yet, but we might have gotten lucky and can figure it out by simply asking those with that specific role to prove they still have it, if that's possible. Edit: Praise the Ja! Edited April 2, 2017 by TheMightyLopen
DrakeMarshall he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 21 minutes ago, TheMightyLopen said: Y'know, if you respond so fast, I can't just leave my vote on you. Aonar, sounds good. Bugsy is next on the list(a very real list that exists). Any suspicions? Just putting this out there, but the fact that someone Snapped means it's fairly likely the converted player was a Misting, correct? I mean, it's possible that it was just a random Snapping, but it's a higher chance that it was caused by the conversion, I think. Does this mean the player who Snapped should tell someone what role they got so we can try and figure out who lost their role? I'm not sure how many players have roleclaimed yet, but we might have gotten lucky and can figure it out by simply asking those with that specific role to prove they still have it, if that's possible. It is probable the role of the snapped is the same as the converted: smoker. It'd be nice to have confirmation on that, I agree. But we can for now assume that the snapped misting is a smoker. Also, if you don't mind, what is the reasoning for that vote you just threw? It looks like you're saying you have a list of people you suspect maybe, which is well and good, but it's still nice to announce why you suspect people. Unless your vote is just a poke vote?
TheMightyLopen he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said: It is probable the role of the snapped is the same as the converted: smoker. It'd be nice to have confirmation on that, I agree. But we can for now assume that the snapped misting is a smoker. Also, if you don't mind, what is the reasoning for that vote you just threw? It looks like you're saying you have a list of people you suspect maybe, which is well and good, but it's still nice to announce why you suspect people. Unless your vote is just a poke vote? That's not how it works though. The role of the Snapped is likely the same as the previous role of the converted. So, say a Rioter got converted into the Smoker, that means if someone Snapped, they'd Snap into a Rioter. So we have no idea what the role of the Snapped is. The List is based off of my gut. At the moment, I'm just trying to get the voting started, because the earlier it starts, the more likely we'll get useful information. So I'd like Bugsy to vote before I remove my vote from him. Or at least give opinions on some players. Similarly, where are you going to place your vote Drake? Edit: Praise the Ja! Edited April 2, 2017 by TheMightyLopen 1
Elenion he/him Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 Ising the being of fairly sure that the kill on DK wasing made by a Coinshot. The Inquisitor wasing the having of no motivation to kill him, but a Coinshot could have hasing the wanting of removing an inactive. Ising the agreeing that the Crusade can wait for this cycle. Ising the attempting of decoding the hidden message in the tin. No hasing luck yet, but hasing barely started.
Recommended Posts