Jump to content

little wilson

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2831

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Everything posted by little wilson

  1. little wilson
    One thing you should know about Maill: if he knows anything about you and he's about to be lynched, he'll announce it to the thread. At least, if he's good he does. Information is his game and he has no qualms revealing anything. It is therefore ill-advised to give him information or role-claim unless you're getting something in return and you're okay with the info he gets about you being revealed should he be lynched. I'm going to make a request of our Jindo Warrior: in case Phatt didn't get a Pendant, please protect him tonight. I'd also request Phatt to seek Neo, as I suspect Neo is actually the Cultist. Though I suppose it doesn't really matter. There's a 50/50 shot of getting the right one and if you choose the Citizen, it's the other one. If we can clear Elantris of Cultists, we've got a clean area and the great thing is that our Priest is inside it and he can verify people as they get in there. We just need to keep him alive in the interim. If we have two Warriors (which we probably do), it would be great if we could get them in contact with each other, or at least get an intermediary so we can get them protecting Phatt on off-cycles. If you're fixing grammar mistakes, fine. If you're greening a vote, fine. If you're changing wording or anything else, don't do it. If you're adding information, mark it at the end with an "EDIT:"
  2. little wilson
    I just noticed Wonko's post about the Elantrians, and Neo being the Veteran. I still think we should let Phatt figure out who it is and as long as we keep in contact with them, we'll know and we can lynch them. Lynching blindly there isn't wise, I don't think. Those with Korathi pendants should send to Phatt. And I don't think the pendants can be gifted on the cycle the person dies, but I believe that someone can be named the heir? Or is that only with Seons? EDIT: And Wonko, if you think it's necessary to reveal my role, fine, but I would prefer if you didn't.
  3. little wilson
    All right. On my laptop, finally. First up, Kipper's post. I'm going to take this in sections, and I want to make one thing clear: I'm not doing this as any kind of defense of Kas. Now, I personally don't think Kas is evil, but that's because he's playing exactly like he always does, and he has a very certain tell (at least for me) that gives away when he's evil. But I don't expect other people to know that, so I don't care if he gets called out. He can defend himself if he wants. I want to comment on some of the things said in here because I really don't like the message that this post is giving off. My issue with this part is everything that's said about the experienced players. I strongly disagree. Now, you can blame this on me being an experienced player who just doesn't like the riffraff getting involved, but that's not what it is. I don't play this game going "Oh, Meta is more experienced than Wonko, so his opinion is more valid." Uh, no. Literally anyone could be evil. It's about what is being said as opposed to who is saying it. And I'd like to think that most of the other experienced players are the same way. It's not about who. It's about what. So why do the really experienced players tend to not get voted on at the beginning? Well, it's probably because they've played enough games that they have a good idea of how to cover their alignment and their tells of their alignment, so it takes a few cycles for people to notice that there's something off. It might not even come out until they screw up by defending a heavily-accused teammate that they probably should've left out in the wind. But that's not to say that experienced players don't take votes. You bet we do. Let's look at this game alone. Day 1: Maill started right off voting for Meta. Kas voted for me. Meta voted for Aonar. Day 2: Clanky voted for Twei. Kas voted for Luckat. I voted for Maill. Twei voted for Maill. Meta voted for Jain. Aonar voted for Alvron. And then we have today, which is mostly Maill, but Kas voted for Jain. Sure, most of these votes are from other experienced players for experienced players. But I don't see how that makes a difference. None of the so-called "riff-raff" jumped onto any of those votes, unless you want to call Clanky riff-raff for jumping on Maill, because I'd definitely group me and Twei in with the experienced players. But I personally don't think anyone is a lesser player just because they haven't played as often. We're not some elitist group that no one can join. If we were, we wouldn't be so quick to offer advice to newer players. Just ask Orlok how "elitist" we are. Oh, wait. He's dead. We can't. My point here is that it's not experience that determines whether a person's post gets discarded or not. It's the content of the post. Is there anything substantial in it? Is it adding anything new to the discussion or is it simply echoing what everyone else has said? Now, I'm sure you're thinking that it doesn't matter if someone is just echoing everyone else, but I beg to differ. It matters greatly. Anybody can say "I agree with what these people have said," pop a vote on someone, and call it good. If that person gets lynched and found to be a villager, there's not content in that vote to analyze. Did the person actually have a good reason to vote for them? Did they really find that person suspicious? Or were they an eliminator tacking an easy vote on because they wanted to kill a villager? It's impossible to tell with a vote with no content. This is why we shouldn't just be voting willy-nilly. We need substance to the votes. Reasons about why. Now, if the vote has a 4-5 majority, and someone throws a vote on to make it harder for vote manipulators to change it, fine. But the people who voted before that had sure better make sure they've got reasons, and the person who sealed the vote had sure better make sure that they've never been contrary to people doing that in the past. I agree that we need to be discussing the gyorn, but I disagree that we need to be discussing gyorn strategy. Why? Because if someone mentions an incredibly clever strategy in the thread and the gyorn hasn't thought of it, they'll probably adapt it into their plans. You might not think that'll make much of a difference, because hey, we know what they're doing. But if we hadn't told them what to do, it might've been a heck of a lot easier to find them. And this is why we shouldn't be posting strategies. Yes, it would be nice to discuss things now rather than try to figure it out after the fact. But how would those discussions really help us? They'd be telling the gyorn exactly what to expect so they can start planning against us before we even know what they've done. Simply by virtue of us discussing so much that they know what we'll do under any scenario. So discussing how to hamstring the gyorn or who could possibly be the gyorn is fine. Discussing gyorn strategies when we don't know what they've done (besides convert Elantrian) isn't. I've already addressed most of this in the first point, and I still hold to that. The more reasons we have for why people are voting for someone, the easier it is to find the faulty logic and that makes it easier to find the eliminators. It's not about every post being useful to my standards (or any other experienced player). It's about meaningful, substantial discussion because without that, we might as well give up and let the Cultists kill us all. Kipper, I'm not sure if it's because you've gotten used to the way the mafia forum does things so you don't like that we're different and you're trying to force us into being more like them, or if it's because you're evil, but that entire post reeks of subversion. It's like you're trying to get everyone else to team up against the experienced players for the simple reason that we're experienced, and you're using reasoning that doesn't even apply. Now, if we were actually saying things like "Hey, you need more reasoning to that post otherwise you're totally an eliminator!" or "You disagree with me and therefore you're wrong" or anything like that, then you'd have a point. But nobody has said anything remotely like that that I've seen, and if they did, I'd be all over them like butter on bread. Everyone plays this game differently and there's no right way to do it. There's not even some ways that are better than others, and I would never vote for someone just because they're doing things differently than me. It's about their explanation for it. I regretted the first time because I wrote an entire essay analyzing every single one of your posts and I got tunnel vision and I was wrong. This time is entirely different. It's mostly gut coupled with things I've heard from other players and other things that you've said that don't quite match up. I'll admit that I'm far from certain. To be honest, if it weren't for the votes on Zas, I'd remove mine from you, but since now it's either you or Zas, I'm stuck. I don't want to set a precedent for lynching converts simply for them being converts. I think that's a terrible idea. It's even worse that we're lynching one of the original Elantrians (who we already decided were likely not infiltrated by the Cultists). Maybe the Gyorn hasn't chosen an Odiv. He probably hasn't. So why lynch Zas? What if he's the veteran Elantrian? We're going to need that person alive in order to have the best chance at exploring the city safely, so lynching any of those three simply because they had the misfortune of being converted is faulty logic. Phatt is in there. If one of them becomes the Odiv, he can check them again. And guess what? He'll see the Odiv as being Shu-Dereth. So why do we want to lynch Zas? Why is this a wise idea? You all realize that he'll become Hoed and therefore essentially useless right? Let's just protect Phatt for now and focus on what's going on outside of Elantris.
  4. little wilson
    I'd like to join this guild. My application. Other than vocals, I've been playing piano for 20 years.
  5. little wilson
    That wasn't what I was saying at all. I listed two groups of players there. The first level was the level of players who have played at least 10 games (and if they've played less, they're on the list because it's universally recognized that they're threats, like Claincy). The second level is people who've played at least 5 games and up to 9. It's not an insult to be on that list. I'm not saying the people on that list aren't as big of threats. I'm saying that there's not necessarily enough info on them to peg if they're a huge threat or not, so putting them on a team with Maill and Aonar wouldn't inherently unbalance the team. I'd throw Hael on that list as well, even though he's played less than 5, simply because I noticed after his first game that he'd be a major threat. But he still hasn't played much so he could be on a team with them. I want to address some of the other things you said as well, but not right now as I'm on my phone, and I want to be on my laptop for that. For now, I'll just say that I didn't vote for Maill because Alv did. I was planning on voting for Maill regardless today; I just haven't been on my laptop for long enough to post on the thread until this morning (or I've been doing other things, non game-related on my laptop). I highly doubt that Twei voted for Maill because Alv voted for him either. If you recall, she voted for Maill yesterday too, and Maill never responded to her. So that's three people who all voted for Maill of our own volition, with our own reasons, entirely independent of each other.
  6. little wilson
    I support the lynch on Maill. My reasons for voting for him yesterday were mostly based on gut. And then he said this: And I got worried he was actually telling the truth, so I retracted it. Plus, I wanted him to contact me so I could get a better gauge on him via a PM. He did not and has not contacted me this entire game, which I find somewhat odd, since in other games that we're both in and he's good, he contacts me within the first two cycles. Granted, these are games with open communication, which this is not, but I would think he'd at least be somewhat interested in my take on things. Unless he's worried that I'll read him like a book and know he's evil. As it turns out, I didn't need him to contact me. I was contacted by somebody else. This other person had been in a PM with him. I'm not going to say whether it was Throat or Mushroom or perhaps another that contacted Maill directly rather than him contacting them, but this person told me that Maill was oddly agreeable with everything this person said, which reminded them of LG10, in which Maill was evil. Maill phished for information on people this person could trust (names and/or roles), and then didn't offer anything he hadn't already given the thread. Now, Maill often tries to gather information, but he normally has something to offer outside of what he's given the thread. Bartering information is what he does. But most of the games he's good in, he doesn't actively seek for sensitive information like roles. If he discovers, he discovers. But he doesn't put a formal request ou for those who want to be contacted to speak up so he can get in touch with them, when he knows that there's a high amount of role-claiming going on in the PMs. I think he did that so he could get more role-claims. This has been said many times thus far, but I feel it needs saying again: Do not role-claim in PMs if you are a Citizen. Not unless you are 100% certain that the person you are talking to is a citizen as well, and even then, you probably shouldn't do it unless you're the Priest and you've checked the person you're talking to. And even that's something you should probably avoid because you have no idea who the person you're talking to is talking to and what they might reveal accidentally to someone else who may or may not be evil. Back to Maill though. My contact was worried that they might die last night. They were positive that if Maill was evil, s/he would be attacked. To my knowledge, this person was not the person attacked. If they were, I have a feeling they would've spoken up by now. This lack of attack does not exonerate Maill though. I think Team Evil is playing a massive I Know You Know with us. And that brings me to someone who I'm almost certain is Maill's comrade if Maill is indeed evil: Aonar. Maill's response to my vote on him last cycle threw me off since Evil!Maill doesn't normally say things like that. Evil!Aonar on the other hand....Aonar would absolutely say something like that, and if Maill was wondering in the evil doc about how to get rid of my vote, Aonar would encourage a statement like that. With emoticon and everything. I expect those types of comments out of Aonar. Maill, not so much. Anyway, while reading back through the thread, I came across this post: For some context, he said this after we'd all pretty much agreed to not discuss the Orlok lynch because there wasn't anything to be gained from it. But Aonar still decides to speak on it. Why? Well, initially this post didn't strike me as particularly off, probably because he's been trolling me in an OOG PM for a while, so I'm used to it. But re-reading it in the light that he could possibly be evil? Everything clicks into place. Aonar loves the I Know You Know gambit. If he's evil, I have a feeling they killed Orlok for the sole purpose to get us wondering why. Why Orlok? That makes no sense. But we'd try to work it out anyway. And that's precisely why it's a perfect hit for Aonar. He gets a certain amount of glee when he's able to get into people's heads with his gambits and tricks. He'd advocate a hit on Orlok because it makes no sense. And then when we didn't discuss it as much as they wanted us to, he threw it out there with a random, rambling paragraph to remind us that Orlok was dead and we still don't know why. I also find it interesting that here, he spoke of being suspicious of Mek due to Mek's frustration: That last sentence. At a time when both Meta and I and probably others had pretty much cleared Mek, Aonar tries to cast doubt on him. I'm positive that Aonar knew that that genuine frustration indicated that Mek was innocent. Even if he wanted to express paranoia that Mek could've been faking the frustration, Good!Aonar wouldn't have worded it as "suspicion." Good!Aonar would say that Mek is probably good, but we shouldn't write off the idea that the frustration could be a ploy. Evil!Aonar doesn't benefit from saying something like that though. Team Evil wants us to suspect each other. They don't want us clearing people easily. If it looks like we are or we could, they'll want to call that reaction into question in the best way they can. I believe that Maill and Aonar are on Team Evil. If this is correct, it explains Aonar's focus on other high level threats, since these players are likely to be good (unless they're the gyorn), since having more than 2 highly experienced, dangerous players on Team Evil would be unbalanced (though that isn't to say there's not someone like Dow, Karlin, Mek/Fel, Kipper, or Winter on the team. I just doubt there's someone like Meta, Alv, or Claincy). Plus, Maill's actions are inconsistent with his past evil playstyle, but those same actions make a lot more sense if he's in a doc conspiring with Aonar.
  7. little wilson
    Where: Heirs to the Final Empire (RP Board) System: mobile site on Android Browser: Chrome Got it on the second try. Most of the others mentioned I've been able to open fine, but I'm not sure if that's because I'm using the mobile site or if it's because of how intermittent the problem is. EDIT: Also while posting this.
  8. little wilson
    It is. I noticed it the last time the site was in maintenance. And I laughed very hard because I could just visualize Chaos cackling as he holds UNNNNNLIMITED POWER! (I could also hear his voice as he says that too. It's a little disturbing...)
  9. little wilson
    We have no evidence that the Duke or Duchess is a Cultist. It's a guarantee a Prince/Princess is, since we know one of them moved Spencer to Mek on Day one, and likely the same one moved Ostrich to Wonko on Day 2. I actually think that the Duke/Duchess is probably a villager and since they were suspicious of Spencer, they wanted to guarantee that lynch since the votes were so close. So they pulled someone off the next biggest lynch target. Announcing that he'd been Duked in no way exonerates Bort. In fact, I think it was ploy to get people thinking exactly as you are: that he's a villager because why would he announce something like that? Well, because he could be the Cultist Prince/Princess who wasn't online to see the bandwagon switches so couldn't change his action orders to accommodate the new lynch and now he's been Duked and with all the conversation about the vote manipulation roles and that villagers shouldn't be using them, he's using that as a way to make himself seem clear. Yes, I know it's convoluted. But that's what I would try to do if I were the Prince/Princess Cultist and my vote had just been Duked. The Mek/Orlok lynch came about because of an argument based on a misinterpretation. I wish I'd said something before it blew up like it did and ended up making both of them viable lynch targets, though the only reason I was fairly sure both were villagers was because of the way it blew up. My point here is that the bandwagon at the end of Day 1 was unideal, yes, but I kind of doubt that there was more than one eliminator involved in it, and even if one was involved I don't think it was Dow. I mean, I guess he could've been, if he was the only eliminator online and he could tell that the lynch wasn't going to go the way they'd planned towards Mek and he made an executive decision to move it elsewhere. But if that's the case, I definitely don't think he'd get involved with the very next bandwagon that happened. That's foolhardy. So looking at the votes on Fel in the order they were placed: Me, Dow, Wonko, C1Mek, Phatt. C1Mek has been guaranteed to be good (saying nothing of his current state). I'm inclined to think that Wonko is as well. Dow's actions yesterday I feel exonerate him for the most part. As the first vote placed 30 minutes before the bandwagon started and with none of my own pressuring to get people to support me, I'm pretty sure the clears me. Phatt's the unknown, and I'm still entirely undecided about him. But the lurkers being voted for aren't like you. You're posting. They are not. There's a difference between someone who consistently has a tab open to 17th Shard and refreshes the page every once in a while to see if people have posted in the thread and then responds when they're called out and someone who is checking the thread and refuses to say anything when called out. And yes, there have been lurkers this game. Aonar is a huge lurker. I see him on the thread over 60% of the time I refresh the boards, and yet he's posted a grand total of two times this entire game. It's obvious he's checking the thread and keeping up with it, but he's not commenting. Yes, I know, he gave some real life reasons about why, but that was only yesterday that he explained it (and he still placed a vote with some fairly sketchy logic behind it knowing that he wouldn't be online again to change it). But this isn't about Aonar. The point is that there have been lurkers. And voting for them is one of the best ways to draw them out if it's even possible to draw them out. I completely agree about lynching inactives. But that's not what we're doing. Did you see anyone tacking on a vote for Ostrich? Even Meta backed off of Piff. Spencer wasn't inactive. Spencer was active in another game and he just wasn't doing anything in this one. Does this mean I support the lynch on Spencer? Heavens no. He posted. He responded. Sure, he didn't give a great excuse as to why he hadn't been active beforehand but he said he'd be active in the future. Was he? Yes. He posted 5 times in the last 4 hours of that cycle. In comparison to the rest of the people who posted during the day, that's better than or equal to over half of the players, myself included (sure, 2 of his posts weren't contributing to discussion but they weren't detracting from it, which is more than I can say for some people in some games). And we lynched him? I thought the point was to get lurkers active in discussion and if we succeeded, to move onto someone else. We didn't even give him a chance. I'm a little disappointed, to be honest. Again the people being targeted aren't the ones who are completely inactive (or seemingly so). They are people seen in the thread. They are people who might eve be posting once every cycle or two. They are people who are sending in orders. They won't be replaced by pinch hitters. These are people who are playing the game; they just aren't participating in discussion. There's a very big difference between the two and I'm positive that difference has been discussed before at length. I know because I wrote quite the post breaking it down. Basically, Bort, you're my biggest suspect right now. I don't normally make those kinds of statements at night (nor do I typically talk much at all) because I prefer to maintain a low profile and not make myself more of target, but this is a 48 night so we might as well take advantage of the discussion opportunity. Why do I suspect you? Well, it's a combination of things. One, your timezone and online schedule matches up with the Cultist Prince/Princess. Though so does anyone in Europe. Two, it seems like you're intentionally misrepresenting arguments about inactives/lurkers. Three (and this might just be me), your comment to Kas about "us regular Citizens" strategizing for the Gyorn. I typically look askew at those. It's one thing for someone to come right out and say after a lot of pressure that they're a regular villager. It's something else for people under no flak at all to make comments like that. Strikes me as a way to weasel your way into people's trust. Four, there's your whole argument to Kas about strategizing for the Gyorn and how that's the only way to find him, but Kas already addressed that part far better than I ever could. Ultimately, there are a lot of red flags I'm seeing. Just in those last few replies. Of course, you're not the only one I'm looking at. Jain's another: I know you've sealed lynches before, but it's typically only been after a pretty decent pile of evidence is found against them. It's not normally a tacked-on vote for someone who's only been vaguely suspicious and is only barely leading the lynch. And anyway, the whole point about the discussion and the lynches is to hear people's reasons for lynching people. With someone like Wonko, it does no good to throw a vote on there to seal the lynch without providing your reasons for why you think that Wonko should die over anyone else. The vote was close enough that it could've gone any direction (as we saw). So what exactly made Wonko stand out to you? Meta already pointed out that you've never reacted like this before in a game. Every time you get called out, you address the fact that people are disagreeing with you, but you don't actually do anything to really alleviate those suspicions or disagreements. Why?
  10. little wilson
    Kas, Jain retracted his vote from Dow. He had a vote on Won, but he retracted that one too. As far as I can tell, the shenanigans are with Ostrich (probably a Prince/Princess) and Bort (a Duke/Duchess).
  11. little wilson
    At the risk of sounding like one myself, if the Lovers are Citizens, then their primary goal is to survive, with their secondary being to help the village (or the Gyorn, I suppose, if they want to play the more difficult route). Before the game started, when I was getting shipped with everyone and their dog, I considered multiple Lover strategies. What it all comes down to with them is that they have no reason to help people who are going to turn around and try to kill them. Since the Cultists can only win by eliminating everybody else, this makes the Cultists the Lover's biggest enemy. But if the Village is indiscriminately lynching people simply for having been converted, the village isn't far behind the Cultists in terms of enemy. We have no idea who the Lovers are or how many there are (unless the Dula(s) want(s) to step forward, since that would help pin the number, though I'd definitely suggest keeping the players matched to yourself), but statistically, it's far more likely for the Lovers to be Citizens than Eliminators or a Citizen-Eliminator match. I feel for the lovers (okay, not really. I only got shipped, so I can only imagine the troubles they're facing right now), because that can be a hard role to play, even if you're both Villagers. I'd prefer not to antagonize them into helping the Gyorn with his win. With that many extra hands helping him, it would make it all that much less likely that we win. Any strategy that plays heavily on the "You're a villager, and it doesn't matter if you live or die" idea should probably be scrapped if we don't want more enemies than we already have.
  12. little wilson
    Maill, I also would like to be contacted. We're not really making much headway today, are we? Kipper, which option do you think? You've got that you think it's an Elantrian, and then you say you think #3, which is the non-Elantrian option. I'm of the opinion that the convert was an Elantrian and probably an inactive one (so probably Neo, since Ren and Zas are both probably active). However, there's a chance it could've been one of those two, and if that's the case, at least one of the Seon holders knows, because I'm almost positive that someone is in contact with Elantris right now. If a Seon holder knows who the convert is (assuming they're an Elantrian) and you're hesitant to say because you don't want to put a target on your back due to your Seon, I suggest using Kas' gifting idea. It would be useful to know where the Gyorn is converting. By gifting your Seon, the Cultists likely won't kill you since you'll no longer have it, kolo? Moving on from the conversion (I think we've spent too much time talking about that), suspects. I think Mek made a very good point about the lynch set-up yesterday. What with the noble (since it could've been either Prince/Princess or Duke/Duchess) moving Walin's vote there and the Keeper vote on Mek, it's pretty obvious they were trying to kill him. I don't think that the bandwagon was orchestrated by the Cultists. That said, there's a decent chance a Cultist voted in the bandwagon, probably late. Since we don't know what Fel was/Mek is now, it could've been insurance for another innocent death or it could've been an attempt to seem more trusted if Fel was a Cultist. This makes me look at two of the last three people to vote. The last three votes were from Wonko, Mek, and Phatt. Obviously, it's not Mek we're looking at (at least in reference to this. He could be an eliminator now), so that leaves Wonko and Phatt. I'm not sure which one I'm more interested in, since either are valid. Phatt said some suspicious things during Day 1, but he got in contact with me last night with his Seon (I have no trouble saying that now since it's corrupted and therefore not a threat) and now I don't really know what to think about him. I don't trust him but I don't distrust him either. Wonko's quick vote switch strikes me as off too, especially since he laid a vote on Mek and then almost immediately switched it over to Fel. And I don't think he's explained that switch very well. However, Wonko already has three votes on him, and I'm not certain enough to tack another on. I'd also like to mention Jain and Winter, as Meta already did. The attempt on Mek had already been discussed during the night, so the fact that Jain jumped on right at the start of the day to direct focus back to the bandwagon on Fel (when we don't know what alignment he was) strikes me as odd. And Winter's more of a gut feeling than anything else. I do still have suspicions of Maill, but his comment has me rethinking. (Which is exactly why I'd like to be contacted by whomever your contact is, Maill) We've got a little under 7 hours left in the cycle, and with the votes as spread out as they are (and only 3 on the highest), I'm worried there will be another last minute bandwagon on a lurker. Personally, I'd advise against a bandwagon like that today, since there's enough info in the thread that lynching someone like Wonko or Jain would provide even more fodder for discussion tomorrow.
  13. little wilson
    For Mek, it was his genuine frustration. With the discussion being what it was, I can't see any reason why an eliminator would get that frustrated. That mostly cleared him for me. With Orlok, it was his post about the Korathi pendants. I see no reason for an eliminator to make a public declaration like that, as it only helps Team Good. After all, the pendants block a kill. The only kill role is the Cultists. I was more certain about Mek, but I was still pretty sure both were Citizens. I'll take Seonid's idea: I am also not the Convert. I am placing my vote on Maisao. It is unlikely to move. My gut tells me there's something off with him, and his post did nothing to alleviate those feelings and instead actually exacerbated them.
  14. little wilson
    "Will you follow me?” Kyara listened to Rashek from her place in the back of the room. She'd only seen the man briefly when he left to the Well with Alendi, but he looked different. Whatever had happened up there.... Well. He was different. But different didn't always mean bad. The room was silent, but Rashek stood still, waiting for them to answer. So Kyara took a breath, summoning her courage and spoke out. "I will."
  15. little wilson
    Ostrich played the AG. That was his first game. The fact that you don't remember him isn't surprising though. He's typically borderline inactive. In MR6, he was around a bit in the planning, and he posted a little bit in the thread, but hardly at all until halfway through the game.
  16. little wilson
    I know you asked this to Dow specifically, but since I was the person who placed the first vote on Fel, I'll answer why I'd picked those 4 specifically (Clanky, Dow, Fel, and Aonar) rather than some of the others who hadn't posted as well. Seonid (who's already responded for himself) had said that he'd be inactive for the first cycle or two, so I knew not to expect anything from him. Ostrich is never very active. Luckat is virtually always inactive at the start of the game. So I was going for people who usually contribute early (even to a small degree) and weren't, but were online and checking the thread enough to have been contributing. And as for the lynch being "perfectly good". The candidates were Mek, who was a Citizen (but we don't know what he is now), and Orlok, who was a Citizen. I fail to see how that was a perfectly good lynch. The discussion had been good. Very good. But the lynch? Not really, no. And since a few people (Jain and Kas in particular) have been wondering about lynching the inactive/lurkers and the strategy of it, I'll give my reasons for that now. In most games, I ignore the inactives. I'll poke vote them every now and then but nothing more than that. I focus predominantly on actives and semi-inactives. However, in MR6 over half of the eliminator team stayed silent, letting Gamma and Orlok talk in the thread. Similarly, in the AG (which was the last time I was on Team Good), the eliminator was perfectly content letting Claincy be the one to talk in the thread, and even then, he stayed fairly in the background until I died. After that, more of the eliminators started talking. This is a fairly common tactic. About half (or more) of the eliminator team will be borderline lurker/semi-inactive. And the rest will be somewhere between semi-inactive to very active, depending on their skill level. Since I've typically ignored inactives/lurkers in the past, I'm trying a new strategy to bring focus to them earlier. Why now? Well, because in this particular game, we don't have the luxury of tying up the vote or just not lynching anyone if we don't like the options available. Someone will die. If it gets down to the wire and there's still not a great lynch target (and I disagreed with both the options yesterday as I thought (correctly) that they were both Citizens), lynching somebody who refuses to participate is absolutely a viable and reasonable option. But Wilson, I hear you ask, how can we still get meaningful discussion if we're just going to turn around and lynch an inactive or lurker? That's a good point. However, my point isn't to go lynching lurkers wily-nilly and sacrifice the discussion. No. The goal is to continue discussing and calling out the semi-inactive and active poster just as we always do. Discussion, after all, is key. Meaningful discussion, in particular. If a semi-inactive is consistently getting called out and they post something but nothing really of substance, that's absolutely suspicious. If they continue like that, I'm all down for lynching them. But while we're discussing, we should also be placing poke votes on those we notice are lurking but not posting. Ideally, we should also be paying attention to the inactives and if they've been seemingly inactive but they're not replaced by a pinch-hitter when you'd think they should be, that person is feigning inactivity and likely checking the thread while private browsing and only getting onto the forum to send in orders. That person should be killed with extreme prejudice. The idea of placing poke votes on lurkers is to get them to respond to the discussion in a meaningful, substantial way, or at least give a valid excuse for why they haven't and when we can expect them to be able to. In theory, this removes those lurkers from where they were and puts them into active discussion, where we can then engage them more and figure out their alignment better. And if a lurker refuses to participate or consistently fails to provide a substantial response, then lynching them if there's no better candidate is fine. Now, if there is a better candidate, then obviously we'll lynch them. My point with this is that we need meaningful discussion. That's a fact. Lack of discussion allows the eliminators to do as they please and the village always loses. The more people that discuss, the easier it is to catch the eliminators. I have a few people I'd like to hear more from before I cast my vote: Clanky, Maill, and Luckat.
  17. little wilson
    I can get the pizza this time. Since it's a Tuesday, do we want to start at 6 or 7? 6 on a Saturday made sense, but I'm actually giving blood tomorrow at 5:45 so 7 would work better.
  18. little wilson
    So tomorrow? Yeah, the JFSB. First floor. Side facing the library, in the part of the first floor that's disconnected from the rest of the first floor. By the tables. Who all is coming?
  19. little wilson
    That you're a troll. That's always what you mean.
  20. little wilson
    He's posted twice. He had the irrelevant one to Hero last night and then he had another one earlier today more pertinent to the discussion. EDIT: His second post is here.
  21. little wilson
    Don't worry about it. You've caught it and that's the important part. There's 40 minutes left in the cycle. Right now it's a tie between Orlok and Mek. I'm going to be honest here: I don't think either of them are eliminators. I suppose I'm slightly more suspicious of Orlok than Mek, but that's not really saying much since there are a number of people who I suspect far more. Clanky's given a suitable reason, and Dow and Aonar checked in. Fel, however, has checked the forum since my post calling him out, and he didn't say anything. Therefore, my vote is going there. I understand that the odds are low that he'll check again before the end of the cycle, but that's fine. Clankii. Feligon. As for my reasons about choosing a quasi-inactive over someone like Orlok: Thread discussion is what drives this game and is the best way for us to find eliminators. If Orlok is an eliminator, we'll see more evidence of it tomorrow. However, we need to find someone to lynch today, since someone has to die. True inactives will be replaced by pinch-hitters. But players who are feigning inactivity? They won't be replaced. They'll just keep not contributing to the discussion. That doesn't help us. In normal games, I don't typically advocate lynching inactives right off the bat, but for this? Yeah. It's a lot better than killing the people contributing to discussions, since we're guaranteed to catch eliminators talking in thread this early. Just give it more than a turn.
  22. little wilson
    No, I'm not messing with you at all. We apparently look at this game from a different angle, it seems like. It appears that you take the ratio of eliminators to villagers and apply it to everyone, which is how you're getting the 5/6 chance (aka 83%) that everyone else is a villager. Which makes Orlok's 60% chance of being a villager your biggest suspect. However, I look at the game starting every single player at most at 50% chance of being a villager (some, like Meta, Gamma, and Alv, start significantly lower than 50%). I know that most of the players I'm talking to are villagers but it's not like I know who those are. If you want to play with an "Innocent until Proven Guilty" track, that's up to you. But I hear "60% villager," and I think "There's got to be someone who's lower than that." Until you explained it the way you just did, I assumed you started players at 50% as well. And yes. I do understand someone has to die this round. Don't be condescending. I get that you're frustrated, but this is a game. If you want to know my reasons for saying what I did, ask. Until then, take a breath. Calm down. Frustration won't help discussion.
  23. little wilson
    I read it, but even after having read it, I don't see why you're so set on going after Orlok. Just because you misunderstood what he was saying doesn't mean everyone did. Just because you disagree with him doesn't make him a Cultist. You said you're 60% sure he's a villager. Since you're so preoccupied with votes becoming actual lynches, why would you keep a vote on someone who you're only 40% sure is an eliminator? Are you somehow less suspicious of virtually everyone else? Including those who haven't said a word, despite their silence being against their normal playstyle? I don't like the idea of being required to kill someone right now, but since it's a necessity, I'd much prefer it be someone who is viewing the thread and not contributing than someone who actually is contributing. Those contributions are more likely to show inconsistencies as the game goes on and that's the best way to find the eliminators. Here.
  24. little wilson
    But that's combining both Eliminator teams. The point of this particular discussion is about whether to focus on the Gyorn/Odiv or the Cultists and how much attention we should place on either. While, yes, the full eliminator threat is a maximum of 2/night, the threat of the Gyorn himself is only 1/night.
  25. little wilson
    Meta made a comment earlier about how it would be useful to go after lurkers. I think this idea has merit, and since I don't want tunnel-vision on Phatt, I'm going to vote for Clanky instead. He's been paying attention to the thread, but not posting anything. I'd also like to note Feligon and Dowanx as being two other players who normally contribute at least a bit in the first cycle but have yet to say anything. I'm curious as to Aonar's silence, but he told me in a separate PM before the game started that he'd be somewhat inactive, but he's also been around enough that he could've said something. My vote will likely stay on Clanky unless given a good reason to change it, and then it will probably go onto one of the other three. Also, I'd like to note that with the Orlok/Kas discussion, I think Orlok makes a good point. He might not be describing it well, though. The Gyorn is most definitely a threat. However, until he chooses an Odiv, that threat is simply one a night. Once he chooses an Odiv, assuming the converts have been posting a conversion list every day, we will have a list of who could possibly be the Odiv--since it could only be one of the converts, which we will have an updated list of in the thread every day. This will make it easy to find the Odiv. However, this means that the Gyorn has two choices, with pros and cons to both. 1. Choose an Odiv early. Pros: double conversions and faster potential win. Cons: short-list of converts for the Odiv. 2. Choose an Odiv late. Pros: Potential Odiv list is longer and will take more time to sift through to find the Odiv. Cons: Longer time to win which means more chances of getting caught and killed. I agree with this assessment. The Gyorn is definitely a threat, but it's one we can work around. We should pay attention and be posting the convert list in the thread every day, but until he chooses an Odiv, we should keep most of the focus on the Cultists. EDIT: And Phatt, those summaries of your posts weren't my main disagreement with you. That was just my way of showing exactly what you've contributed thus far, which is still fairly negligible. And your comment about knowing there are multiple of each safe role is intriguing since it's the first day and everyone except the Cultists have virtually no knowledge except their own role. I would hope that even if you're in a Seon conversation with someone who has claimed one of those roles, that you wouldn't trust them. Anyone can lie, and claiming a safe role to a somewhat new player in an attempt to earn trust and get them to out themselves sounds like a brilliant way to possibly kill off an important role. It's almost a guarantee that the Cultists have at least one Seon. So Citizens in Seon conversations, be careful what you say. Particularly if you didn't start the conversation.
×
×
  • Create New...