Orlok Tsubodai
-
Posts
1473 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Orlok Tsubodai
-
Right. I’m not sure if it’s even worth me making an effort now, but may as well try whilst I can. I think Devotary is likely true to her role. If the eliminators have two kills, this game is unwinnable, and so there’s no value in considering a line of logic following from this assumption. I’m taking for granted that Ashbringer was the elim kill. Devotary was known to have a soothing ability, and so could safely have been assumed survive a tied lynch. From this we can draw a few conclusions: 1) I think it’s strongly in the interests of the eliminators to keep us focused on a serial killer (see impact of consensus on Devotary last cycle). Assuming competence, this does not look good for Thaidakar. Considering Thaidakar, we need to note both their claimed kill last cycle, and that Archer chose them as their elim!scan target. We should also consider that they chose to play up their inexperience, and that they claim to have misunderstood their role. 2) The absence of a train on Devotary suggests that the eliminators did not feel under threat. I don’t know that we can draw much from this, but with Devotary’s vote movable and the soothe it was possible that Devotary could have created a 50/50 chance of Illwei’s death, rather than Tani’s. Assuming Devotary is a neutral, we can slightly lower our assessment of Illwei being evil - although with even one eliminator around at rollover who hasn’t cast their vote, Illwei can be guaranteed safety through an easily explainable vote on Devotary, so we shouldn’t materially adjust our assessment. Returning to my thoughts from the end of last cycle on the impact of Archer’s role, I think we again need to consider non-standard roles. Araris stands out most to me, here, both as a claimed non-Epic, but due to the nature of his role. If Araris is a villager, I think his role presents a serious problem to the eliminators - he is functionally unkillable without risking the kill being redirected onto one of their own. Reasoning from balance is dangerous, but giving a villager a role that can’t be killed without the lynch feels odd. Illwei didn’t target anyone last cycle, but the role she claims is another unverifiable one, in a mechanically different direction to every other role we’ve seen this game. Thaidakar… Thaidakar claims a kill last cycle, which is strong evidence against his being evil. However, the vote on Tani is odd, and claiming to misunderstand their role feels very convenient. I’d be surprised if TJ didn’t correct this misunderstanding, particularly given it came from a new player. Relevant to this is that Thaidakar’s response to Archer’s claimed scan was that the eliminators might be scared of his role, which is logic reliant on the assumption that the eliminators knew his role. I don’t know whether this is another mistake, or an elim-slip. Beyond that, we have Archer’s claim to have scanned them itself. This was an obviously implausible claim, given Archer had already claimed to be able to talk with the dead, so why choose Thaidakar to make the claim about? 1) Archer might have been bussing Thaidakar, hoping their flip would clear Archer in future rounds I think this can be largely ignored as a possibility - both due to the implausibility of the claim, and because for Thaidakar to flip eliminator would entail the eliminators ceasing to obscure lynches. As such, I think we must conclude that it was a claim made knowing Archer was going to be lynched. Making this assumption, we should consider Archer’s claim assuming v!Thaidakar and e!Thaidakar. Logic tbc, as running out of mental steam here, and praying for someone to engage in discussion. Going to vote on Araris for now. Suspect this game is already over, but would welcome engagement and activity from everyone.
-
Why would you rather lynch Tani than Devo?
-
Why on earth would you not want a serial killer dead, and in so doing undermine information we might get from a clearly non standard role?
-
I suspect it has more to do with having a consensus lynch candidate, and therefore an absence of pressure to discuss further this cycle. I know on my part I should have done more to look back at Archer’s D1 interactions for potential eliminators, but have been feeling a bit burned out, and plan to deal with it on the other side of rollover. I think we ought to do further thinking about why the eliminators chose to hold off on making kills early in the game. Thinking this through, my initial reaction was that the eliminators were committed to not making a kill from the moment Archer claimed to be able to liaise with the dead - the absence of flips being strong supporting evidence for his claim. Kills flipping, but not lynches, would have immediately raised suspicions of a janitor - and why have a role that can communicate with cleared players? I’m not certain about this line of thought - it is possible that the eliminators intended to spin this as there being a problem with the lynch, instead. I think this is less likely - we observed no attempted kill, and so would need to find an explanation for the absence of the kill stronger than clouding information to confuse the village and protect Archer. I will acknowledge a possible world where the eliminators intended to obscure only the night kill, and have Archer appear as a villager able to communicate with the eliminator’s victims - if believed, how could his role be that of an eliminator? In this scenario, the explanation for the kill not being made would have to be that Matrim was an eliminator, and they chose to obscure his alignment instead of the alignment of their target. I was going to discount this as less likely, on the basis of Matrim’s role, and because they could have returned to the broken lynch explanation I offered above. Thinking through it as I typed, however, I think Matrim’s role is one very plausibly held by the eliminators, for two reasons. The first of these is that, in making Archer’s gambit, the eliminators had to know of village epics - and Matrim’s role is the only one we’ve seen flip that suggests the existence of Epic powers as part of the role. Beyond this, and importantly to further analysis, I think the nature of Archer’s role as able to conceal alignments or roles strongly implies other powerful, non-standard eliminator roles. With access to the powers of dead epics, the eliminators would have a plausible route to mask their actual actions. A further thought here is that forgoing the night kill to give the appearance of no information is a strategy vulnerable to village vig kill abilities - which, this being a blackout, the eliminators could not have discounted. I’ll grant that early on vigilante kills are unlikely, but in the medium term the ploy would have been revealed. I’m going to assume competence from the eliminators, and therefore assume that they considered this possibility, which means on turn we need to consider why they chose this route. I’m going to discount an arsonist here on balance grounds - I think that if the eliminator team can conceal the lynch, and through an arsonist not have to sacrifice kills over time to do so, then the game would not be fair. I think the nature of Archer’s role forces a choice on the eliminators about which information they conceal, and allowing it to conceal all information does not feel in line with the role. I’ve been throwing thoughts at this as they come, so forgive me for not making this neat. I’d welcome thoughts and challenges on my assumptions here, but I think in essence my conclusions are: 1) Archer’s role implies the eliminators may want to conceal the roles of other eliminators, implying they are non-standard 2) The eliminator’s strategy of not night killing to withhold information is vulnerable to vig-kills - we need to consider why it was chosen, with implications on their team make-up 3) An arsonist is highly unlikely
-
@Devotary of Spontaneity, again you haven’t explained why you would give TUA Epic Powers. Afraid I just don’t buy this - it feels too convenient, and enough of what you’ve said has been demonstratively false regardless. @Ashbringer, I think even if Devotary is Calamity, they need to be lynched this cycle - they’ve been misleading the thread at length, and continue to obfuscate the reasons for their actions - I think the reason for this is that they’re more at odds with us than they claim. From a slightly different perspective, we’re Reckoners, in a blackout game - I’m afraid I 1) don’t buy Calamity existing within this game for narrative reasons - what happens to Epics at large when they’re lynched and removed, and 2) don’t believe Calamity would be neutral.
-
As a serial killer, why are you motivated to give players powers? If you hadn’t given powers to TUA, you wouldn’t have needed to rely on them to lie - so again, there must be something you’re not telling us.
-
So why visit TUA last cycle, and admit as much to the thread? You must have known they’d come out with suddenly having powers. I don’t see how this adds up.
-
Right. Going to look through Devotary's posts, to see whether we can discern anything about their role: P1: RP, nothing worth analysing. P2: Replies to Archer, making a point about both not being an Epic, and suggesting there aren't village Epics. Worth considering whether this is an RP answer only, but if Devotary's role is as they claim, then this is insincere. Need to consider further why Devotary, knowing about village Epics, would make such a point. P3: Another interaction with Archer. Notably, highlights Archer's gambit, but distances themself from Archer. P4: Comments on role distribution. Downplays non-Epic eliminators. P5: Claims eliminators more likely to be Epics than regulars. Downplays highly powered Corrupted Epics, & non-Epic eliminators. P6: Reinforces value of Archer's claimed role, again reinforces risk of Archer making the claim whilst evil. More notably, discourages roleclaims - an interesting approach given her claim that she needs to kill Epics. P7: Votes on Stick to take Matrim out of the lead. Equivocates a lot - Stick has a role, might be roleless, wants Mat to claim, but that would make him a target etc. P8: More supporting Archer's roleclaim. Defends Matrim. P9: "If you are an Epic on an all-Epic team, it would be easy for you to assume that of course all the elims would be Epics" I'm assuming that you meant here that it would be easy to assume that all epics are eliminators, as if Stick was an Epic on an all-epic elim team, they'd know whether or not all the elims were epics. I'd be grateful for clarity, however. Was going to carry this on tomorrow, but going to post now given Devotary's latest post, as the point of it was to demonstrate that her actions don't match her purported win condition of killing epics from each side, but she's now admitted to misleading us all regardless. Devotary, as Calamity, what is your win condition, and why did you claim otherwise for so long? Honestly, I'm not sure I buy this claim - I think it more likely that Devotary and The Unknown Aon are both eliminators, and that this is an attempt to cover inconsistencies in Devotary's actions than it is that Devotary is a neutral Calamity.
-
Care to expound on that? I’m very much minded to agree with Tani presently that we ought to lynch you - I don’t think your role makes sense (epic scan, kill conveniently arriving C2, surviving an attack). I’m also surprised by your choice of targeting TUA - unless you disbelieved Aman, why scan them? I don’t think that scanning, when you knew of so many other Epics, fits your claimed win condition.
-
I’m not convinced that that’s the case - I think if Archer were a jester, it would have appeared as part of his role in the write-up. @Illwei, @_Stick_, if I remember correctly both of you claimed roles with two elements, much as Archer did. I think given Archer’s flip, we could do with an explanation of the details of your respective roles. @Devotary of Spontaneity, do you know how you survived the kill?
-
@Sequence, pleasure to have you! I wouldn't over-worry about being new - it shouldn't be a barrier to contributing, and beyond missing some conventions doesn't make you any less capable of evaluation. Indeed, coming at this from outside the established meta is in many ways advantageous, in giving you a different perspective on interactions. Much the same to you, @Thaidakar the Ghostblood. Inexperience is no barrier to critical thought, and I look forward to your contributions. @Thaidakar the Ghostblood, I'm curious as to why you decided to claim - would you mind laying out your decision process? @Tani, why did you feel the need to clarify your self-evidently not-serious claim? Beyond that, I think advocating coordination on item claiming is worth considering. I'm coming at this from a position of believing said coordination is disadvantageous to the village - I think coordinating to maximise getting items isn't likely to result in an advantage to the village, as the eliminator team are just as capable of participating in the coordination, and think it removes interesting information on e.g. which players go for the same items (and so are less likely to be coordinated). That said, I've re-read the rules, and don't think we find out who failed to get an item - and so will concede that there's a trade-off here, in terms of incoordination vs players' stated interests in items. Expressing a wish to coordinate to avoid a waste reads slightly off to me. @Fifth Scholar, I'd reiterate perhaps more strongly the point you make here - the value of knowing nearly all items/interactions is in my mind much greater than many people each knowing one or two item positions, and so would strongly discourage too much PM claiming. @JNV, I'd like to probe your thoughts on this, particularly your suggestion that holders should be reluctant to use it. Looking first only at it taking away allomancy, I think even if one used it randomly, a ~1/4 chance of taking away an eliminator's ability to make the kill and use metals is very much worth a ~3/4 chance of taking away a villager's ability to use metals, even if we only consider it's potential on LyLo. Beyond that, I've always been opposed to village reluctance to vig kill. I'm not sure it's consistent to require a higher threshold of suspicion to kill someone than to vote on them with the intent to kill them. Further, if we assume a villager is even slightly more likely to find an eliminator suspicious than a villager suspicious, a vig kill is net positive to use. If a vig kill has even a one in three chance of hitting an eliminator, and eliminators make up one in four players, then on average vigilante kills will hurt the eliminators more than they hurt the village. The 10% chance of your own death does change the equation, but I think the knife remains worth using at even a moderate level of confidence in a player being evil.
-
I hadn’t even considered Tani’s claim - my question to Thaidakar is in reference to the post I’ve just re-quoted.
-
Appreciated. Would you mind explaining how your power only affects eliminators, however, and if so why you haven’t been using it?
-
He claims to be able to have an ability that isn’t an action (which I increasingly think is strange in a game with potential regulars), is non-mechanical, and to have a second ability that is an action (potentially single use?). I’m comparing him to myself, the rioters, and lurcher - all of which are claimed village epics with a single, fairly standard, action. This was addressed to Kas, but my own thoughts are that it doesn’t. I think it’s more likely that it indicates he’s bluffing about an action to make us think he’s too important to lynch than it is that Archer actually has an action so important that it’s better for him to risk being lynched than to tell us. Beyond this, if the eliminators do have a kill, as the rules suggest, and Archer isn’t an eliminator, they’ve just put a large target on their back, and might not get to use their action regardless. Edit: Much appreciated, Illwei. Unless Archer is an eliminator so integral to the eliminator team that saving him is worth doing at any cost, I don't see e!Illwei making this claim, and indeed was reading Illwei as village D1. I'm going to leave my vote on Archer, as I don't think my case is reliant on his role being odd, but will try to re-evaluate. @Archer, I think if you are a villager you really ought to be clearer about your role - as we're presently on course to both lose your role and a lynch on finding it.
-
Forgive me for being so blunt as to suggest you’re not being truthful, but I’m not sure I buy this. You went to the effort of embedding the answers in RP, but didn’t think about how that RP would have to include Matrim saying yes to being Frank? That feels a hugely convenient change, following the conclusion that their not being able to lie entailed Matrim or yourself being evil. Beyond that, if you can ask three yes or no questions, that can be ignored or lied in response to, what does the role actually do? Overall, I think enough of this feels off to me that I think you’re evil - or at the very least not a villager. Firstly, you made the claim of being a village epic, but it works in a different way to nearly every other claimed village epic. It’s certainly possible for this to be the case, but it’s also possible that you gambled on a claim without expecting so many other village epic claims that were more mechanically vanilla. (As an extension to this, if Archer flips evil, I think we can conclude that his team at large have roles that are in some way non-standard). @Kasimir has already highlighted why your reluctance to detail your action doesn’t make sense as a villager. If it’s useful to the village, you’re more likely to survive the lynch to use it. Your interaction with the dead is the only non-action action so far claimed this game, conveniently making it unverifiable. You’ve changed what you claim the result of your action is, also conveniently. If you are a villager, I really don’t understand why you aren’t coming completely clear about how your role works, but unfortunately, am pretty convinced that you’re not a villager.
-
Of relevance: From this, Archer is claiming that Matrim claims the following: 1a) Matrim know no more about the rules than during life 1b) Matrim is a villager 2) Archer is the only way in which the dead can communicate 3) The dead are unable to lie in their responses to Archer. How we interpret this depends on both Archer and Matrim's alignments - I am taking it as given that neither Matrim nor Archer would lie as a villager. Permutation 1 - Archer and Matrim are villagers: Conclusion: Archer can give us alignment information on dead players, and if they cannot lie, could ask two questions about potential teammates (e.g. is there an eliminator amongst xyz) alongside their alignment. I do not think this permutation is remotely likely - beyond the already raised points about the village being too dependent on one player, I think that forced-truthful questions to eliminators is too unbalanced. As such, I think one or both of Archer and Matrim have to be an eliminator. Permutation 2: Archer is a villager, Matrim is an eliminator: In this situation, we have confirmation that the dead can lie. Given the limiting nature of yes/no questions, this is a very significant reduction in the power of Archer's claimed role, which would then produce nothing of real value (and return us again to a position of not being able to confirm alignments in any way, but with Archer's role there for... some reason?) Permutation 3: Archer is an eliminator, Matrim is a villager + Permutation 4: Archer and Matrim are both eliminators I don't think we can take it for granted that there was any communication at all, if Archer is evil, although I'm minded to believe there would be - if PMs exist at any point, it is possible that Archer could ask a question where the answer is known by another player, and making a claim that's verifiably false would result in Archer being caught in a lie. I note that Archer has said that speaking to the dead isn't an action (which is interesting, given the power of it), and that this is a useful claim to make in a game with known action scanners. I'm quite happy to leave my vote on Archer at this juncture, although will see if I can do a re-read of Matrim's posts.
-
For now, Devotary, Archer. Presently, there appear to be very few roles in the game that aren't mechanically straightforward. Ignoring, for now, Striker and Devotary, we have your role, Stick (who claims to passively survive a lynch and to do something else), and now Thaidakar. Given the absence of information we face, and the potential that in a game that might change state, why are you seeking to keep information about a non-standard role from the village? Beyond this, I struggle to see the value in claiming you have an ability without explaining it. Is there any potential that its use might change whether alignments are revealed?
-
This is the post I was referring to, Aman - where you postulate all-non Epic roles being elim, whilst claiming one yourself.
-
Banking on this not being a double post by virtue of thread rate. @Thaidakar the Ghostblood, what are your thoughts on what we should do about Devotary and Striker? Beyond that, I think an explanation is needed on the above. What about your power means it will only affect eliminators, and if it does, why haven't you used it yet? If you get a different result from using it on villagers to eliminators, it provides us alignment information.
-
Lost this once already, with posts coming so quick, so going to break it up a bit. Fundamentally, I think we need to look at the categories of role claims. We have village epics with simple, mechanical powers (rioter, lurcher), claimed village epics with non-mechanical powers (Archer), claimed neutrals (Devotary/Striker), non-Epics with powers, and claimed regular reckoners. For me, I think the simplest explanation is that at least some of these claimed categories just don't exist. @Amanuensis, you've implied in your logic that you're not actually a regular villager - yet didn't act. What is your role? I think Archer's claim as a village epic D1, yet being the only non-Thaidakar simple mechanical village epic power strikes me as a gambit gone wrong - and I firmly agree with Aman that we need to see about what he got from Matrim's Dice. I had thoughts on Striker and Devotary related to this as well - and still struggle to reconcile Devotary's claimed role with her reaction to Archer's claim D1, but have lost them to brain fog. In response to Archer's claim about scanning Thaidakar, my own read is that they chose it because Thaidakar was a very plausible lynch candidate themselves, and so it was more likely to be believed than a claim about e.g. Illwei or myself. I further think there's strong case for lynching one of the non-simple mechanical village Epics - if our actions can alter how the game works (e.g. activate PMs, alignments), I strongly suspect it'll come from lynching one of the non-simple roles. I've read through the whole thread, but have very poor notes.
-
In before it turns out this is exactly what you're doing
-
I can assure you that the two of you account for an unholy proportion of this game's wordcount, and thus difficulty summating in a spreadsheet. >>
-
Back to working through the thread, because I hate myself. Unsure how I get this to be anything but a link: @Kasimir, I'm inclined to agree with you on the idea that immediate acceptance of village epic indicates that it comes from a village epic - I had the same reaction. What I'm curious about here is you simultaneously holding this view, and voting on Experience. I think (at least at that stage in the game), tentatively clearing Matrim, Experience and Stick, to whom you were replying, would have seemed the logical extension of your position. Given Matrim's flip, I'm not suggesting the rule holds, but I am curious about what reads as a contradiction within a post.
-
More thoughts may follow, but slightly/very put off by lack of confirmation of alignment. I'm going to try to motivate myself to press on, but in much the same way Kas has described, lack of data points really makes my analysis less effective. I think we ought to consider further why TJ isn't giving us flips, and as such is essentially removing the village's ability to analyse - what impediment does the eliminator team face to create an even playing field? The lack of a night kill is one option - a game where they have to win through the lynch, but without the village knowing alignment feels possible to balance, but equally just unsatisfactory to play. In term of information, I followed @Araris Valerian last night, to test their claim and check that it wasn't a cover for some tie with Kas. I was redirected to Aman, who targeted no one. I'm yet to read the end of D1 and most of D2 (unashamedly just poorly motivated), but I'm increasingly inclined to vote for Devotary. We have a known night kill, and plenty of claimed village epics. I'm normally a real advocate for compromise with neutrals, but I think Devotary is incentivised to do real damage to the village - the completion of their win condition isn't something we need to allow if it has a material impact on our own.
-
Do we have a rough idea of how many villagers are not epics?
