Kurkistan

Terminology update: It's "death rattles", not "death chants."

That is not what that WoB says. You can certainly interpret the WoB as you have (though I do not), but you could also interpret the "it" in Brandon's answer as referring to Roshar's magic as a whole, rather than just the third classification. Brandon doesn't even confirm that the "10 surgebindings and 10 voidbindings" are 20 or the 30, when it comes down to it.

I thought it might be appropriate to bring a small bug to the staffs' attention. Citations in the wiki that are supposed to lead to annotations are instead leading to a blog post by Brandon called "Annotation." I know that old links to the annotations (from before the site redesign) still work because I have some old bookmarks that still go to the right place, so I think something might be a tad wonky with how the Coppermind deals with its annotation citations.

Well that didn't work out.

The sword was already in the statue's hand, though she did make the statue move a bit.

I do not want a draw. I don't think anyone but you (who has some very good but very personal reasons to want one) wants a draw. Also the Soother/Rioter will likely come into play at that point.

That sounds about right, by my thoughts. I haven't given as much thought as I should to the details of connections between "nested" objects, but the fact that you can change a wall in TES without worrying about changing the whole palace seems to indicate that kind of division/encapsulation. I think marianmi is on the right track there, though s/he might go a bit to far down the road to discreteness. Jasnah notes how all the Stormlight lamps in the hallway are dun when she gets back, so I'd imagine so as well. As to my theories: Ah. Sorry, it seems that I come across as a bit of a know-it-all . Thank you for your regard, but still I haven't tackled this particular problem as of yet. I have a vague intention to hold off on serious theorizing about WoR-related stuff until the book is out, if only to save myself from embarrassment.

@Darnam I was actually talking to Claincy there, though you're free to change your vote too. Also, I know that I've been accused of Spikitude for my arguments. As Wilson says, I think Gambles got called out at some point as well. I think the "obvious reasons" Wilson was referring to were those of no one else going along with it more than anything else, but I agree with both of you that it's too late by now.

1,2: No idea. I can guess, but nothing comes to mind at the moment. 3. I'd guess that they tend to gravitate to their appropriate locations, but not be locked down to them in the moment to moment. So far as correspondence to physical locations goes, an interesting possibility is that the locations of the beads don't actually correspond to physical locations, but instead only to each other. So beads whose objects belong in the palace will cluster together near the palace bead, which will in turn tend to be located near the beads of nearby buildings, and those beads to city blocks, and those to... and so on. This ties up well with the way that Shadesmar is known to expand/contract based on how much stuff is going on in any location, like how space is Shadesmar-less. -- So far as the "palace bead" not incorporating all of the others, recall that cognitive aspects look to work on the level of "objects," as we saw in TES. "The palace" is a singular object in its own right which happens to physically contain several other quite distinct objects. --- As I have not actually thought/written on this before, that I can recall, what theory of mine are you referring to?

Would you mind changing your vote to Edgar, then, at least until a few hours before the deadline? Really, we're more consensus-building than voting at this point, since nothing's locked in until 13 hours from now.

@Darnam I think we're both (well, me, at least) suffering a bit from "I'm quite obviously right, so why would anyone disagree?!" syndrome, so I apologize if I became somewhat antagonistic. Since it looks like nothing's going to change, I'll abandon my scheme as dead in the water. I reserve the right to laugh in a bitterly ironic fashion if we find out later that it would have saved the day, though. I vote for Edgar because of the reasons Gamma has given. I'll switch to whatever the majority is half an hour or so before the deadline if it comes down to the wire, but I think Edgar is the better choice of the two just now. @Bartbug The scheme honestly won't work if we don't have Edgar to test you tonight, so it doesn't matter. I suppose it's a moot point now anyway.

@Darnam Well, if you're so ver- No. Crem it. I was about to give in because everyone else seems so stubborn about this, but I can dig in my heels too. Also, we have 19 hours, not 7. It's a 36 hour time period. To address your points in order: (I'm out on the town for a few hours after this, so no follow up) The "three unlikelies": 1. The unlikelihood of us not killing one of them. This is entirely in our hands, so I don't really see it as appropriate to include in a probability assessement. 2. The unlikelihood of both surviving the night. I've already said why both surviving the night is relatively likely. If the Lurcher flips a coin, he has a 50% of protecting whichever the Spiked would go after. So the spiked either potentially waste a night (huge win for us) or the Seeker lives. I also have yet to see you tell me why it's so very likely that the real Coinshot was on vacation last night while the mistborn drew Steel. 3. The unlikelihood that both are Seekers. I agree that this is unlikely. --- Looking at those three, it's not impossible that my scheme will work out. And, to say it for the tenth time, we lose almost nothing by just waiting a night to kill whichever "Seeker" you like the least. Spikers gonna' kill no matter what we do today. The only risk is that Beetle has a high-power role, and that's a small risk that I'm willing to weigh against the chance we have 2 Seekers. @Edgedancer The Spiked are not normally privy to roles, while Beetle was kind enough to tell us that Gambles is not only a villager, but an un-powered one.

I am Kurk, as it turns out, and have no such theory because people don't have Forms.

First of all, I highly doubt it's 4 spiked. Games like this normally cap at 2 until the numbers get absurdly large, with a higher cap at 3 for big groups (like ours). I wouldn't expect 4 spiked until we got into the low 20's. So 8-3 is our starting point right now. We have a bit of breathing room. Also recall that the Spiked will be killing people for the next two nights no matter what. As long as one lives, we keep dying. If we kill someone else on your list, then we have 7-3 if we get it wrong. The following morning, we get the results from the Seekers. Either way, we kill one of them. If you're right about your current vote, then Beetle is Spiked. Fine. We kill Beetle tomorrow. If he's Spiked, then he and Edgar will each say that the other is Spiked no matter what and we'll go about our days as if my experiment had never happened. But if he's not Spiked and Edgar isn't Spiked, then both will say the other is a Seeker and we will have essentially guaranteed Edgar's trustworthiness. At the end of all this, the village will have killed two people in as many days, one of whom you want to kill right now. I say that we should kill whoever's next up on the list, the guy we would kill tomorrow, now, and hold off on Beetle for a day. That is all I am asking for and results in, at worst, the exact same situation killing Beetle today would yield. Even if Beetle is Spiked, killing just one of them today won't do anything different from killing one tomorrow. @Darnam Sorry if you read me as being accusatory there. I was simply trying to say that it's not like we don't have other people shady enough to vote for besides these two. And of course telling you who not to kill helps. It narrows the suspect pool. EDIT: Example: If we had some role who's only ability was to stand up and say "I'm not evil!" and provide proof for it, then it would be immeasurably helpful if, in a clutch moment, he removed himself from the pool of suspects. ---- To re-reiterate: Killing a Spiked this very moment will do us no good versus killing him tomorrow. If we kill Beetle now, we'll have to kill X tomorrow, neh? So why not kill X now and Beetle tomorrow? The only risk is if spiked!Beetle has a powerful nighttime role.

I chose not to point fingers at who would be a better target (you and the others have done enough of that to provided us with a large pool, I think) so I could focus on who to not kill for what I think are very good reasons. I also don't follow your logic with the Lurcher. Just as the village as a whole is best off killing someone every day, so too is the Coinshot best off killing someone every night. S/he obviously didn't do it the first night because no one had any information, but we can guess that the Coinshot would start trying to kill people every night after that. So the Coinshot has a good reason to target someone for some reason every night. Beyond the improbability of the mistborn drawing steel, you also require the impossibility that the Coinshot chose not to act last night, since only one steel-kill was attempted. Therefore, it is highly likely that the mistborn was not the one shooting coins last night. ---- If we follow my dastardly ploy, here's what will happen: -We will kill someone besides Edgar or Beetle today. Recall that only 1 of them, if either, is likely to be Spiked. That leaves a very large pool of other Spiked we have to take care of. -We will kill either Edgar or Beetle tomorrow. -We will potentially have a verified Seeker after that. What you want to do is just kill Edgar or Beetle today, then someone else tomorrow, with no real hopes of verifying a Seeker at all. All that does is flip the order of operations at the expense of a chance of slam-dunking the game for the village.

This is my thought as well. Nice theory.

To reiterate: If we let them both live to Seek in the night and tell us the next day, we have the potential to basically win the game in one fell swoop. If both are Seekers and both live through the night to tell us, then we will walk out of all of this with 1 bonifide, almost entirely trustworthy Seeker. In any other scenario it essentially boils down to the same result as we get if we just kill one of them here and now in the vote, but the possibility of both being Seekers should stay your hands.

@bartbug & Edgedancer Given the remote possibility that both of you are Seekers, you should Seek each other tonight to find out. That way both of you would have to be Spiked to pull the wool over our eyes. The Coinshot should not target you in order to allow us to get this information, and the Lurcher can flip a coin on which of you to protect from the Spiked, to make them less likely to waste an attempted kill on you. If the Spiked do manage to get one of you, then we'll find out that person's role, at the very least. How to respond to outcomes: If both survive the night; one spiked, one normal: They'll both claim the other is a Spiked. We kill one, find out his role. -Then we let the other make a few readings, hopefully kill a few targets to verify. Eventually kill him to ensure that he's actually a Seeker. If both survive the night; both spiked: They'll both say the other is a Seeker. We kill one to find out his role. -If he's spiked, we obviously kill the other right off the bat; just leave it to the Coinshot, actually. --Actually, now that I've written it this scenario will never happen. Even if both Beetle and Edgar are Spiked, they'll claim the other is Spiked just to save their own skins for a bit. --- EDIT 2: If both survive; both Seekers: They'll both say the other is a Seeker, we kill one to verify, then treat the other with very very mild suspicion because of possible mistborn shenanigans. But the other is still probably legit. --- If one survives the night; the other is dead and found to be a Seeker: We kill the other, find out his role. EDIT 3: We can wait a bit on this one too, actually. If one survives the night; the other is dead and found to be not a Seeker: We let the other live for a few nights and give readings, like in the first case. Then kill him for information. ---- Now this is all looking a bit bloody minded, isn't it? Recall, real Seeker, that you win if the village wins, regardless of whether your character survives the night. So your sacrifice would not be in vain. The key here is that racking up enough verified "good guy IDs" will give the village a solid voting block of 100% trustworthy people that we can move forward from. On top of that, the Seeker might always luck out and hit a Spiked, allowing immediate verification of that claim: though be wary of Spiked pretending to be Seekers in this way, as they could sacrifice one of their own to get a mole in. The Seeker is actually a much more "trustworthy" role than a Seer in a normal game of Werewolves: the Seeker can find out things about villagers that the werewolves do not know: the Spiked do no have perfect information in this regard. This means that the Seeker can tell us that Bob is a Thug and, if Bob is indeed a Thug, the Spiked were highly unlikely to be privy to that information. That gives us a bit more flexibility in verification. --- EDIT: For instance: If the "Seeker" points to Jane and says "That's the Soother and a villager", then Jane can say "no I am not a Soother." If Jane is the Soother and is playing smart, she'll know that we're better off knowing about a fake Seeker than keeping the Soother anonymous, and will verify the Seeker's claim. This nearly insures that the Seeker is the real deal and not a Spiked mistborn. If we have two verified villager roles, than it's basically a sure thing at that point and we've got ourselves a real Seeker with no need to bloodily murder him/her. The only way the Spiked could manipulate this is if they pointed (almost, if they have a mistborn) exclusively at each other to get their verifications. This will fall apart very very quickly and we can head it off by having one or two of the verified heroically die for the cause (and still win the game, remember that) to verify the Seeker's veracity. ---- ----- What I mean to say by all of this is that we should abstain from killing either Beetle or Edgar for today, if only so that the experiment can run its course.

Interesting thought, though quite distinct from Cad's own theory. I'm not quite so sure that we can say a Feruchemist tapping an attribute isn't "holding Investiture" while s/he taps, though.

Sorry to hear that. Did you try chating about it with other people on the various hint threads?

Even if stormlight does somehow grant immortality, that explanation isn't enough to cut it. *Mistborn Spoilers* Miles and TLR both still aged despite being Feruchemical gold compounders.

You might want to try the Shardhunt if that be your wish...

The mistborn gets handed one power a night by the GM, s/he doesn't get to pick.

How does that help us, exactly? The Spiked have access to no privileged information beyond who each other is (and conversely who the villagers are), and we know already that their goal is to maximize the chances of killing enough villagers to win the game. What could we learn about their choices that would let us identify who they are?

Parshendi songs are not connected to Shadesmar, they're Spiritual. I think it fair to say that that was just a parallel that Jasnah drew.