Long Game (3)2: Pulling on Strings

[Arinian]

14 hours ago, Elenion said:

I only found this out after the fact, because in my thought process the next thing I did was use the player list to search for anagrams. I found a few possible player/character name matches (ALRIN in particular sparked my interest), began to rearrange each row like an anagram, and hit gold:

Row 1: ARIN IS RRRS

Row 2: ARIN IS RRRS

Row 3: ARIN RRSS

Row 4: ARIN RRSS

Row 5: R

Now I'm not sure what to do with all of those extra Rs and Ss, but I find it an interesting coincidence (or more than that) that Arin's name comes out of that not once or twice but four different times. I PMed him last night asking if he knew anything about this, and then notified the thread that I had found a possible crack in the message. Then I went to bed, and have been busy watching LDS General Conference today, and since Arin still hasn't responded I've decided to just put my findings out there for feedback. Did I find something important? Is it just a coincidence? Did I decode the message completely wrong? Have those crazy letters finally driven me insane?

What to say... looks like coincidence cause I'm sure that I'm not tineye.

Also to say I didn't have acces to internet from Saturday, just saying that if someone is interested why I was inactive.

About my "alignment indicative jokes". I also joked in LG30 where I was villager... everyone who wants can go and look my discussion with randuir about number of elims there was joke about "4.4 and dwarf elim".

I still don't  read through all posts, just skimmed thread. But I don't like this bandwagon on Drake. Yes I was one who pointed on change in his playstyle but except that I don't see any reasons to vote on him. Also I've seen Wilson said that is usually for elims to overreact on false accusations. I don't know how for others but for me it's usual when I'm villager, I was really angry when Lopen was tunneling on me in LG30. 

For now I will vote for Rae, looks like she tries to stay low, unnoticed... maybe it's just I'm tunneling on her. Who knows... not me.

That's all for now.

[Mark IV]

49 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

Isn't the convert fairly likely to get the role of the dead misting (i.e. smoker)?  So how can that possibly give them a kill action?

Something strange is going on...

Yeah, but I assumed that the converts have an inherent elim faction kill ability. Atleast I think that's what it is, because I recall it being said somewhere that the inquisitor, upon giving up under steel, then has to rely on their converts for kills, which hints at the fact that they (the converts) have a faction kill.

I can't be bothered to check the rules right now.

Praise the Ja!

[Yitzi2]

40 minutes ago, Mark IV said:

Yeah, but I assumed that the converts have an inherent elim faction kill ability. Atleast I think that's what it is, because I recall it being said somewhere that the inquisitor, upon giving up under steel, then has to rely on their converts for kills, which hints at the fact that they (the converts) have a faction kill.

Or maybe it just means "now you have to rely on whatever your converts do have", e.g. if someone was converted using steel, or simply organizing the converts to arrange a lynch.

[Mark IV]

26 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

Or maybe it just means "now you have to rely on whatever your converts do have", e.g. if someone was converted using steel, or simply organizing the converts to arrange a lynch.

That is a valid interpretation, I guess. 

[DrakeMarshall]

...and goodmorning. Bandwagon is still in full force it seems. Unsurprising.

I've thought about it and I'm actually pretty sure Wilson is village. She's still wrong about all this, but probably honest about it. I'm pretty sure someone in this bandwagon is one of our two elims (very likely the convert, I doubt inquisitor would risk itself), but nobody is really properly standing out to me. I'll probably accuse one of you later, but for now, no vote.

Also, if my read of the rules is accurate, an inquisitor can survive a lynch. I'll just say it now, don't expect the same from me. If I survive you should obviously lynch me again, because I just claimed I don't have pewter, and so I'd be lying if I survived.

I don't expect I'll be posting again this game. So, again, good luck.

 

Y'alls will soon see that you are dead wrong. You've made a grave mistake. But hey, it's your funeral. *runs away cackling at all his terrible, terrible puns* (you aren't actually making a very critical mistake; I won't even give the inquisitor a conversion so its chill. I'm just making bad puns here, disregard the actual statements )

[Araris Valerian]

The thing is, there isn't really a reason for the inquisitor or their teammate to have gotten involved at this point unless one of them was at risk of being lynched. I'm more of the opinion that we don't really that that much more to go off of than we did during Day 1. The problem with a bandwagon like this is it lets the elims know early on in the cycle if they need to bother with being involved heavily in the lynch. When we have several candidates, then it's much more likely that we will force them to try act directly in their own interests rather than let us kill each other.

So basically, I don't think anybody in the bandwagon is evil, but I also think that it's fairly counterproductive to centralize discussion like that with only 2 evil players.

[DeTess]

First, apologies to Drake for not getting around to answering this sooner (and for not making some of my points clearer).

19 hours ago, Drake Marshall said:

4. I advocated a D1 lynch but found a conversion to be unfortunate. So... You are saying that everyone who voted D1 should be happy about conversions? Just because a D1 lynch means a possible conversion? You know, there are other reasons to lynch someone D1 then to allow a conversion. Lots of them. Like, maybe, killing elims, or getting information from a D1 lynch. Frankly, those are the most obvious reasons anyone ever advocates a D1 lynch. Risking a conversion is a necessary evil. I do not understand at all how you conclude that I should be happy about a conversion, just because I advocated a D1 lynch.

What I meant to say here was that I found it somewhat odd you specifically stated what a shame it was that a conversion could now occur, even though your actions hand't been designed to stretch the amount of time before conversions could occur. I don't think anyone should be happy with conversions (though they would make finding elims slightly easier, as a pattern of cooperation can start to emerge). What I found odd was that you felt the specific need to call this out. I believe the other three points have been answered by Wilson already.

16 hours ago, little wilson said:

I think it strange Randuir mentioned that, because denying it is the only thing you could do, no matter what. If you are the Rioter, the Inquisitor would kill you. If you aren't the Rioter, you can't claim Rioter because then the real Rioter would know you were lying and would tell someone about it. If you're village in that situation, you're casting suspicion on yourself needlessly, and if you're the Inquisitor in that situation, you've basically just revealed yourself to someone, and even if that person is killed, once they die and are revealed to have been telling the truth about being a Rioter, you're done-for. You denying it tells us nothing.

Again, I haven't made my point entirely clear (I'll try and do better in the future). I didn't find his denying that he is the rioter odd, I found that the way he did it reminded me more of how one would defend against being called an elim. If someone where to conclude in the thread that I was a thug, or coinshot or whatever, I might feel like telling them that they're wrong, but I wouldn't feel the need to defend myself, as it's not really an accusation. The distinction between denying and defending I would be that with a Denial, I'd say "you're wrong", or "you're wrong, and this is why" Drake went to defending, which is "You're wrong, this is why you're wrong, this makes me suspicious of you, have a vote".

Anyway, I've looked over the arguments against you again, and it's not as water-tight a case as it appeared to me at first. There's a piece of analysis I want to complete before the day is over, and if this person appears more suspicious than you, I'll switch my vote. Otherwise you still remains the best candidate, from a bunch of bad candidates for the lynch.

[Arrae]

2 hours ago, Arinian said:

For now I will vote for Rae, looks like she tries to stay low, unnoticed... maybe it's just I'm tunneling on her. Who knows... not me.

That's all for now.

Fair enough. I haven't had the motivation to post a lot for SE. I'll try to put more effort into analysis and stuff.

[Orlok Tsubodai]

Please find the current vote tally below - let me know if I've made any mistakes!

Aonar: Lopen (0)
Bugsy: Lopen, Jondesu (1)
Hemalurgic Headshot: Figberts (1)
Drake: Bugsy, Wilson, Hero, Randuir, Rae, DA, Elenion (7)
Wilson: Drake (0)
Elenion: Araris, Ecthelion (2)
Rae: Arinian (1)

[little wilson]

12 hours ago, Drake Marshall said:

To the first paragraph, I think you are missing my point. You made several accusations against me. When I made counterarguments about the majority of them, you admitted that they are "not alignment indicative." So you basically claimed that most of the accusations you initially made were actually insubstantial. By your own words, I am almost forced to conclude that you knowingly used details that do not indicate alignment to persuade people to vote on me.

That conclusion is operating under the idea that I knew those points were non-alignment indicative when I mentioned them, but I didn't. Additionally, I take what people say about their own playstyles in any given game with a hefty of grain salt, since anyone is willing to say just about anything depending on their alignment. If someone else were defending your inconsistent playstyle, I would be more willing to accept that over your own defenses. I also wasn't basing my suspicions off of your inconsistency from game to game. I was basing it off of the inconsistency from within this game, in comparison to that of the standard villager. Your stated motivations for certain actions do not align with what I would expect of a villager. That is the crux of my suspicion.

55 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said:

...and goodmorning. Bandwagon is still in full force it seems. Unsurprising.

I've thought about it and I'm actually pretty sure Wilson is village. She's still wrong about all this, but probably honest about it. I'm pretty sure someone in this bandwagon is one of our two elims (very likely the convert, I doubt inquisitor would risk itself), but nobody is really properly standing out to me. I'll probably accuse one of you later, but for now, no vote.

Also, if my read of the rules is accurate, an inquisitor can survive a lynch. I'll just say it now, don't expect the same from me. If I survive you should obviously lynch me again, because I just claimed I don't have pewter, and so I'd be lying if I survived.

I don't expect I'll be posting again this game. So, again, good luck.

 

Y'alls will soon see that you are dead wrong. You've made a grave mistake. But hey, it's your funeral. *runs away cackling at all his terrible, terrible puns* (you aren't actually making a very critical mistake; I won't even give the inquisitor a conversion so its chill. I'm just making bad puns here, disregard the actual statements )

Honestly, the more I think about it, the less I think you're evil. I still hold that you're playing strangely for a villager, but there's not one right way to be village. I don't have any others that I suspect enough to vote on, though. Kipper is worrying me a bit, but most of what he's doing is things he'd do regardless of alignment, so I'm not willing to vote on him for his actions quite yet. I find Jon's admittance of suspicious behavior on your part but refusal to get involved in the lynch there interesting as well, but that's a stance I could see from village or eliminator.

Before Araris' post, I was going to agree that an eliminator is likely involved in this and that even if you are good (which you probably are), we'll still learn something, but Araris' comment reminded me of LG12, in which we had two bandwagons in the first two cycles and everyone insisted that at least one eliminator had to be involved in both of them, but none were. They were completely village-driven. Of course, both of those bandwagons happened in the last two hours of both cycles, and this has been a turn-long bandwagon, so the situations aren't exactly the same, but....yeah. The fact that Araris is pointing that out is also standing out to me as well, because it occurs to me that Araris would make an excellent Inquisitor: doesn't generally die early, is a lurker, and flies under the radar.

3 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

Isn't the convert fairly likely to get the role of the dead misting (i.e. smoker)?  So how can that possibly give them a kill action?

The Spiked have access to a team kill, just like most eliminator teams in these games. The Inquisitor does not have access to this same kill. The only way they can kill is through UberSteel.

Here's a clarification Meta gave me in LG2 when I asked him about the Coinshot ability:

So the whole of Team Evil gets one kill. That's converts and Inquisitor. If the Inquisitor uses Uber Steel to kill, the Spiked can't use the spike kill, and vice versa. On top of this, if a Spiked has an action they can do based on their abilities, they can't use both their ability and the Spiked kill.

Question, @OrlokTsubodai. Is smoking passive or active?

[Yitzi2]

So does the Lurcher ability block the team kill the same way it does the Coinshot ability?

[DeTess]

Okay, so I'm done going through Lopen's posts (the mystery person whose posts I said I was going to analyze). He's had quite a few posts, and managed to say very little of interest (from an analysis point of view) in these posts. There was one thing that stuck out at me though, which is that he states he doesn't trust his gut as much as he used to, but then starts working down a list made of gut-feelings this cycle. Apart from that, I've got a Neutral read on him.

It should be noted, however, that I've proven in QF22 that I'm not that good at reading Lopen.

[little wilson]

7 minutes ago, Yitzi2 said:

So does the Lurcher ability block the team kill the same way it does the Coinshot ability?

Yes. Lurcher blocks one kill attempt, regardless of type.

[Jondesu]

Alright, I'm awake and feeling a little better, so I did a bit of number-crunching (well, vote tally mostly), since my analysis in AG3 and LG30 proved useful to me, which focused more on the raw data.

So far (and some of this could of course change), the following people haven't cast any votes at all (this doesn't include those who voted and then retracted votes, that will come in a minute):

• HH
• Spartacus
• Kipper
• Magestar
• Manukos
• Meta
• OmeGaster
• Silverblade
• Yitzi

These people didn't vote D1, but have voted D2:

• Araris
• Bugsy
• DA
• Drake
• Figberts
• Hero
• Wilson

Ornstein voted D1, but then retracted it (voted on Sart, a confirmed villager). Drake didn't vote D1, and has voted on D2 but retracted it (on Wilson).

My working theory is that the Inquisitor probably did vote D1, to not be called out for inactivity (or for holding back, like Drake), and has probably voted this round too.  Retracting both votes seems somewhat unlikely, but it's possible Ornstein could be our Inquisitor.  I doubt it, though.  More likely, the above list is relatively clear (for being the Inquisitor, but not for being the converted Elim), and the Inquisitor is one of the following:

• Arinian
• Elenion
• Mark
• Ecth
• Me
• Drought
• Lopen
• Aonar
• Randuir
• Rae

Obviously, I know I'm not, and I'm leaning village on Arinian, but the others I'm relatively even on.  I voted for Mark first round, but while I didn't go back and retract it, it wasn't a very strong suspicion in the first place.

I've already commented on the bandwagon on Drake, which I think is coming from a legitimate village-leaning accuser and is on a villager, which is far too common for bandwagons like this.  Elenion and Randuir are currently the only ones who both voted D1 and are part of the Drake bandwagon. Elenion's known for bandwagoning, so that's not suspicious in and of itself. Randuir I have to be wary of, but I haven't seen anything specific in his posts to call out.  I think it might have been safer for the Inquisitor not to join this bandwagon anyways, so I'm leaning towards Ecth (voting on Elenion right now), or Lopen (retracted two votes already).  I'll cast a vote when I get back from some errands I have to run right now.

[DrakeMarshall]

1 hour ago, little wilson said:

That conclusion is operating under the idea that I knew those points were non-alignment indicative when I mentioned them, but I didn't. Additionally, I take what people say about their own playstyles in any given game with a hefty of grain salt, since anyone is willing to say just about anything depending on their alignment. If someone else were defending your inconsistent playstyle, I would be more willing to accept that over your own defenses. I also wasn't basing my suspicions off of your inconsistency from game to game. I was basing it off of the inconsistency from within this game, in comparison to that of the standard villager. Your stated motivations for certain actions do not align with what I would expect of a villager. That is the crux of my suspicion.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the less I think you're evil. I still hold that you're playing strangely for a villager, but there's not one right way to be village. I don't have any others that I suspect enough to vote on, though. Kipper is worrying me a bit, but most of what he's doing is things he'd do regardless of alignment, so I'm not willing to vote on him for his actions quite yet. I find Jon's admittance of suspicious behavior on your part but refusal to get involved in the lynch there interesting as well, but that's a stance I could see from village or eliminator.

Before Araris' post, I was going to agree that an eliminator is likely involved in this and that even if you are good (which you probably are), we'll still learn something, but Araris' comment reminded me of LG12, in which we had two bandwagons in the first two cycles and everyone insisted that at least one eliminator had to be involved in both of them, but none were. They were completely village-driven. Of course, both of those bandwagons happened in the last two hours of both cycles, and this has been a turn-long bandwagon, so the situations aren't exactly the same, but....yeah. The fact that Araris is pointing that out is also standing out to me as well, because it occurs to me that Araris would make an excellent Inquisitor: doesn't generally die early, is a lurker, and flies under the radar.

The Spiked have access to a team kill, just like most eliminator teams in these games. The Inquisitor does not have access to this same kill. The only way they can kill is through UberSteel.

Here's a clarification Meta gave me in LG2 when I asked him about the Coinshot ability:

So the whole of Team Evil gets one kill. That's converts and Inquisitor. If the Inquisitor uses Uber Steel to kill, the Spiked can't use the spike kill, and vice versa. On top of this, if a Spiked has an action they can do based on their abilities, they can't use both their ability and the Spiked kill.

Question, @OrlokTsubodai. Is smoking passive or active?

Hm... So a few comments.

First, you might be right about no eliminators being involved in the bandwagon... Which would be interesting.

I agree that Kipper is ending up pretty neutral. Can't tell much about him.

I suspect I know why Jondesu is taking the stance he is. I probably wouldn't suspect him for it, even though it is something a spiked might want to do.

Also Wilson, I do hope you have a reliable way to survive, because you claimed soother and all... The attack may not come next cycle, but I'd bet one comes in the next few cycles...

Also your post indicates that the inquisitor could have chosen to give up a different power and get 2 kills a cycle. I'm really wondering why they didn't do that... The only reason I can think of is that the other uber metals the inquisitor has might be somehow better then a kill. But that seems odd. Twice as many kills is a massive advantage.

It's been suggested that the inquisitor felt 2 kills a cycle would end the game too fast and be boring. That idea has merit, only why kill Aman then? If the inquisitor cared more about fun then winning, wouldn't they let Aman live?

[little wilson]

5 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said:

Also your post indicates that the inquisitor could have chosen to give up a different power and get 2 kills a cycle. I'm really wondering why they didn't do that... The only reason I can think of is that the other uber metals the inquisitor has might be somehow better then a kill. But that seems odd. Twice as many kills is a massive advantage.

It's been suggested that the inquisitor felt 2 kills a cycle would end the game too fast and be boring. That idea has merit, only why kill Aman then? If the inquisitor cared more about fun then winning, wouldn't they let Aman live?

That's actually not what I was saying. Team Evil only has access to one kill, unless they get a Coinshot. I was a Coinshot, so I was asking Meta about that, hence the double kill thing. But had the Inquisitor given up something other than UberSteel and attacked with UberSteel, his convert couldn't have attacked with the spike kill as well. It's one or the other. The problem with giving up UberSteel this early is what if the convert had died today? If Dalinar hadn't been a Misting, the Inquisitor would have to rely on the lynch to kill a Misting because he wouldn't have any way to kill.

And....hm. Drake. Araris. I'm not doing this because I expect the bandwagon to dissolve, but Drake is really starting to strike me as village, based on some of these questions. I'm not voting for Araris based on my comment that he'd make a good Inquisitor, but more on his comment about the discussion surrounding Drake this entire time, and therefore not giving us any info. Would've been nice to have Araris involved earlier in the cycle so as to help widen discussion past one point, so that vote is more about prodding him into being more active. Which I know is outside of his typical playstyle, but lurking won't help us. So, Araris, it would be really nice if you'd participate more.

[Arinian]

17 minutes ago, little wilson said:

That's actually not what I was saying. Team Evil only has access to one kill, unless they get a Coinshot. I was a Coinshot, so I was asking Meta about that, hence the double kill thing. But had the Inquisitor given up something other than UberSteel and attacked with UberSteel, his convert couldn't have attacked with the spike kill as well. It's one or the other. The problem with giving up UberSteel this early is what if the convert had died today? If Dalinar hadn't been a Misting, the Inquisitor would have to rely on the lynch to kill a Misting because he wouldn't have any way to kill.

And....hm. Drake. Araris. I'm not doing this because I expect the bandwagon to dissolve, but Drake is really starting to strike me as village, based on some of these questions. I'm not voting for Araris based on my comment that he'd make a good Inquisitor, but more on his comment about the discussion surrounding Drake this entire time, and therefore not giving us any info. Would've been nice to have Araris involved earlier in the cycle so as to help widen discussion past one point, so that vote is more about prodding him into being more active. Which I know is outside of his typical playstyle, but lurking won't help us. So, Araris, it would be really nice if you'd participate more.

Can't resist to vote for lurker . 

Rae. Araris.

[Hemalurgic Headshot]

Hmmm. Perhaps I shall add my vote to this. Araris

[Yitzi2]

2 hours ago, Jondesu said:

Alright, I'm awake and feeling a little better, so I did a bit of number-crunching (well, vote tally mostly), since my analysis in AG3 and LG30 proved useful to me, which focused more on the raw data.

So far (and some of this could of course change), the following people haven't cast any votes at all (this doesn't include those who voted and then retracted votes, that will come in a minute):

• HH
• Spartacus
• Kipper
• Magestar
• Manukos
• Meta
• OmeGaster
• Silverblade
• Yitzi

For the record, I did vote and then retract it on day 2.

[DrakeMarshall]

Hm... Y'know, I'm probably dead anyway, but I'm still more sure of my own alignment then that of Araris, so I'll add my vote on them I guess. I'm going to read up on Araris though, if I get time. Araris isn't really on my radar very much, and I feel I should get a concrete opinion on him if I'm voting...

Also, Wilson, does that mean that if we manage to kill the convert this cycle, the inquisitor will at least temporarily be unable to kill?

I think I understand in that case why the inquisitor would be willing to give up steel. We aren't likely to root out the first convert this early, and the inquisitor will probably get more converts... Seems like a decent price for inquisitor to pay. Chances are, it doesn't cost them anything.

Edited April 3, 2017 by Drake Marshall

[Orlok Tsubodai]

@little wilson, using a coppercloud is a passive action.

[little wilson]

9 minutes ago, Drake Marshall said:

Also, Wilson, does that mean that if we manage to kill the convert this cycle, the inquisitor will at least temporarily be unable to kill?

Yes. They'll be using Dalinar's spike to convert another, but they will be unable to kill. I don't expect this to actually happen, but if it did...

1 minute ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

@little wilson, using a coppercloud is a passive action.

Does this include smoking someone else? Does copper automatically start as on? For example, let's say the copper spike took, and the convert is a smoker. If someone tried to use emotional allomancy on the new smoker this cycle, what would happen?

Also, for everyone else, this means that if the spike took, the Smoker can both smoke themselves and still make the kill. If the answer to the first question I just asked is yes as I suspect it will be, they'll be able to smoke themselves and another and still make the kill.

[Orlok Tsubodai]

Copper starts on. A coppercloud would be protected from seeking and emotional allomancy as passive, but if they were to use copper on someone else, it would become an active action. If there were a spiked coppercloud, they would not be able to submit a team kill and actively smoke another individual.

[little wilson]

9 minutes ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

Copper starts on. A coppercloud would be protected from seeking and emotional allomancy as passive, but if they were to use copper on someone else, it would become an active action. If there were a spiked coppercloud, they would not be able to submit a team kill and actively smoke another individual.

Oh, well that last bit is at least something. Passive self, active others. That works.

[Elenion]

Ecth, why single me out? I put my vote on Drake for my own reasoning, which I explained. I didn't cast that vote just because that's what the crowd was doing, although it did end up where the crowd was. I had also considered voting for Araris or keeping my vote uncast. We have had some admitted bandwagoning this cycle (HH, Arin, and Drake with the self-pres vote), but I'm not part of that. So why vote me? @Ecthelion III