Jump to content

Amanuensis

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5932

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Amanuensis

  1. Amanuensis
    Yeah, once Mark proved he was Survival to me in LG21, I immediately recruited him to the 17th Shard, and we won in the end. Neutrals cannot be trusted, as they will always end up siding with whoever has the best chance of winning, and they're allegiance can easily change mid-game. Are you referring to when you were Survival in the 2nd Shard game, or when you were the Troll in the last one? Either way, my point still stands. Yeah, except, Joe isn't the one claiming you're a Neutral role who only needs to survive the game, particularly when you're in no danger of being lynched or killed by eliminators. Not only is that pointless, but you're effectively claiming something I predicted an eliminator would claim from the start. Survival is a reoccurring role in some of our games, where it's a neutral role that can win with anyone, and almost always has some kind of passive protection like a limited number of extra lives. The problem isn't necessarily that Stink is claiming it as a role, it's the circumstances surrounding his claim. It's completely pointless, and for me in particular, absolutely frustrating.
  2. Amanuensis
    Basically my stance on PMs will never change: I never think they should be the primary venue for discussion, but they are a useful tool that should be used, if only responsibly. As for my stance on being free with information... it ultimately depends. If I have reason to believe a specific role exists that has not been mentioned in the write-up (for example, if there's an Arsonist-esque role that "douses" me and I learn that via GM PM, I will reveal it to the thread immediately). I will not, however, share my role with other players unless I am first confident they are a villager themselves. Why? Because if I'm a useful role I don't want the eliminators to catch wind of it and kill me for it, and if I'm a less-useful role, I'd rather not spell out to the eliminators that they should target someone else. The less information they have on villager roles, the more they'll have to debate internally about targets. In summary, I don't think people should role claim, especially publicly, though if they gain some sort of information (like the existence of an unknown role) they should reveal that. A Survival-Esque role with no form of self-protection? Riiiight. Not discounting the possibility, but I don't buy it. Doesn't really tell me anything about your alignment so I'm not going to read into it any more than necessary.
  3. Amanuensis
    She gets off work in approximately 22 minutes, so I reckon she can whip something up within the next hour.
  4. Amanuensis
    So, I wholeheartedly agree with the first article. I always advocate that players make posts that clearly spell out their thoughts and prove that they're making thorough considerations. While OOG talk can be fun, I feel it does harm the game. The upside is it helps strengthen us as a community, which is cool and all, but I personally prefer to save that for PMs and docs. As for the second article... I don't particularly have any opinion on it. I personally think if you've got a cop role (in this case, Dula) you should keep that a secret until you find someone you can trust absolutely to share that information with. If no one claims Dula then it effectively achieves the same thing as everyone claiming Dula, except nobody has to do any extra work. As for Elenion... I'm not really seeing him acting any differently than he did in MR15. Given that that's the only time I've played with him, his current actions are not really alignment indicative, imo. Ultimately I have no reason to believe he is a villager, and therefore won't interfere, but I also have no reason to think he is an eliminator, and thus won't vote for him either.
  5. Amanuensis
    To be fair, pretty much the entire village did
  6. Amanuensis
    Emphasis mine. Me? Manipulate people? Whaaaaat? Nooooooo...
  7. Amanuensis
    Guess that makes some kind of sense, in an I-totally-have-no-idea-how-it-makes-sense kinda way xD Anyway, I'm going to log off to force myself to do some coursework before my relief gets here. I'll be back either after I finish work (about 4 hours) or if I feel I've done a sufficient amount of work before then. Will respond to any PMs I miss upon my return.
  8. Amanuensis
    Which stuff, specifically?
  9. Amanuensis
    @STINK you never did explain why you were suspicious of me So since I haven't seen anyone comment on a few of my ideas, how do people feel about having the Nobles all vote for the player with the most votes at the end of the turn, or at least all voting on a random player without any votes, to essentially prove that we have vanillas running around? That and having a few players vote for random players as well and ask Merchants to remove their votes, while Dukes put their extra vote on another random player, so that we can see how many vote manipulations we're working with?
  10. Amanuensis
    I definitely think killing multiple players at once can be useful, I just think it should be done sparingly, and not until we have a bit more information to work with. Right now the only thing I know for certain is that there are villagers, secret roles, and at least one eliminator. I'd rather not immediately jump to any conclusions, such as there being multiple eliminator teams, because if we try to combat that by killing as many people as we can as quickly as possible and it turns out we're wrong, it could end up putting us at a severe disadvantage. I would rather see the results of the first two nights before I make any judgments like that, and practice caution by keeping the number of casualties down to what's typical; one a cycle, plus whatever the eliminators attempt. I hope I didn't try to imply that they should be focused. I only want people to take note of them, and try to reel them into the game whenever they can, particularly when there are no better leads. Though I would certainly love everyone to be as active as me, I acknowledge and accept that it won't happen. I'll still do my best to encourage activity, as well as inspire others to do the same in my absence, mostly due to the various benefits associated with activity. Using you as an example, purposely holding back your thoughts so that you can think it through more thoroughly is certainly commendable. I am a fan of forcing knee-jerk reactions, however. Give someone enough time to deliberate about a response and they can systematically strip it of anything suspicious, when they might have said something that would give them away. Another thing is when games get near the end, you'll see significant drops in thread activity in general, usually because all of the vocal players were killed off. If all the villagers remain quiet and passive, I feel that's the same thing as giving eliminators the win. Wilson pretty much covered all of my thoughts. Joe clarified before the game began that the Arrest only lasts the night. So, when a Villager gets Arrested, they only lose one form of communication (the thread) while simultaneously gaining another (the doc). In the case of eliminators they lose two forms of communication (the thread and the doc) which means they're unable to manipulate villagers or work with their teammates. Meanwhile, the villager may not be able to use their power for that night turn, but at least they're guaranteed to survive the night. As for the eliminator they end up roleblocked, which inevitably helps the village.
  11. Amanuensis
    Guess this means I should probably send a PM Mailliw's way
  12. Amanuensis
    So tempted to look through your post history and find all of the examples of you doing things for nonsensical reasons well then, I guess I'll go ahead and ask. Why is Stink suspicious of me? Also, I now realize you're referring to the two votes on you by "still set to die." What's that have to do with you explaining why?
  13. Amanuensis
    I had considered asking why, but I figured it'd be for a nonsensical reason, or that if I asked you wouldn't actually say it, anyway. What do you mean by "still set to die" though?
  14. Amanuensis
    Uh-oh
  15. Amanuensis
    Happy to hear it. I was concerned that Joe was trying to sow mistrust among the forces of light. Since I'm totally not a double-agent or anything crazy like that Same. My detective strategies are very dependent on knowing what powers there are and how they are being used, then figuring out who it is who's using them. With so many unknowns, I'm pretty much forced to take a reactive approach to this game rather than a proactive, which I don't like. My main concern is that since the eliminators have more information than the villagers, they'll be able to influence the lynch in a way that prevents us from learning anything helpful. I'll have to wait at least a cycle or two before I can make any potentially accurate assumptions. I suppose I could send you a message. Though I do have coursework I really should be doing instead...
  16. Amanuensis
    Brace yourselves. Aman's-first-giant-post is coming. Underline mine. This rule is a double-edged sword if I've ever seen one. Anyone who knows me knows how often I like to instigate ties, either to find out who's got certain powers allied with them, or to prolong the death of myself or someone I trust / a teammate. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't sad about this ruling, as it strips me of one of my staple tactics, but there is some good to it, at least. If there are several players we think are suspicious enough to warrant being lynched, we'll be able to remove them simultaneously, and thus gain more information quicker. However, depending on the results, this could mean twice as many village casualties as usual, and therefore I would recommend we do this sparingly. I can think of several instances where I was certain of someone's guilt, but the death of another player, or interactions that occurred thereafter, ended up convincing me the opposite was true. Personally, while I know that players need to die for the game to progress healthily, I seldom like to condemn a player to death unless I have a real reason to believe they are evil, so I think in most scenarios I'm going to advocate that we avoid ties as much as possible. Now, things to look out for. If a tie occurs and two villagers die, there's a decent chance, depending on the circumstances, that one of the players who helped make that tie happen was an eliminator trying to get more villagers killed quicker. If you are a (village) Merchant or Duke, I ask that if you use your power, seriously consider the consequences of it. If vote manipulation is used to create a tie and two villagers die as a result, I am very likely going to assume that the manipulator is evil. While it may not be an issue this early in the game given how many players we have, please think of it this way. Every villager dead is a turn the eliminators are closer to victory, and given how long these turns are (48 hours apiece), that's a lot of time that we can use to generate discussion, conduct analysis, and gather information. In regards to this, I'm mostly going to discuss my opinion inactives. Especially with an inactivity filter in place, I will not support lynching inactives. There is nothing alignment indicative about a player remaining offline for a prolonged period of time, and in my opinion, lynching someone who hasn't been online when they very well could return after the fact is a bit unfair. I propose that we let the five-turn-filter take care of inactives, and progress the discussion by focusing on the players who can actually respond and defend themselves instead. Personally, I am not fond of lurkers. I don't like seeing people viewing the thread yet seldom posting. I know that's just how some players go about their business, and I try not to condemn them for it (Burnt and Alvron come to mind), but it is a great way for eliminators to hide. Take dowanx in LG23, for example. He has a reputation of pretty-much-never posting unless prodded first. People know this is typical of him, and therefore usually take little note of it. Well, dowanx continued this trend in LG23, and turned out to be the Inquisitor. While a player who is lurking might not being doing it because they are evil, I am automatically going to distrust anyone who does, and advise that everyone at least pay attention to it, as well as ask you to call a player out if you see them guilty of this act, either with a post or via PM. Not much to comment on here, aside from the obvious. I expect eliminators to either claim the Citizenry equivalent of their role if their ability matches one of the 9 we know (in which case there's nothing we can really do to confirm they're innocent, other than have a Dula scan them), Beggar / Noble, or a neutral role. No matter what someone claims to you, try to figure out a way for them to prove it, so you can at least have that piece of mind. I'm not going to bother preaching PM safety, mostly because I'm sure someone else will, but also because I don't really agree with never claiming your role to anyone. I just ask that if you do claim to someone, it's either because you have a really good reason to trust them, or because you suspect they are an eliminator and are trying to trick them by revealing that information only to them. Couple things I'm confused about regarding PMs. @The Only Joe, I understand that PMs can't be started and replied to during the night, but how are you going to keep people from reading them? And if I do open up a PM during a night turn just to read it, what kind of punishment am I going to receive? Also, what's the point in only PMing myself? I don't really expect an answer for that last question, and am likely going to just PM myself now to test it, but the rest I would love some clarification on. I'll probably get around to sending everyone PMs at some point, as there's a few things I'll want to ask people one-on-one, but if anyone is looking for someone to chat with now, fee free hit me up. That's all I really see worth me commenting on regarding the rules. So, I guess I'll provide some suggestions for roles. Legionnaire: I see this as more of a protective role than a kill-preventing one. If you Arrest an eliminator, it'll be obvious to their teammates since they won't talk in either the doc or the thread for the entire turn, and therefore someone else will just put in the kill order in (that is, assuming that the eliminators work like most eliminator teams in these games, and not more like ToS where only one or two eliminator roles can do the killing). Personally I'd recommend you use this ability on someone you want to have a private conversation with during the night turn to see if you can trust them, or simply keep them safe. Until you have good reason to trust them, I'd recommend you avoid revealing your identity, just in case. That being said, if any Legionnaire out there is having trouble figuring out who they want to arrest tonight, I volunteer as tribute. ChayShan Practitioner: My best advice is be cautious with your kills. Ultimately it's up to you, but I've come to find that early game analysis is too weak to condemn someone on your own. At least with a lynch, there's a lot to learn from the discussion surrounding it, but with a kill decided by you and you alone, it's better to save that power until you've got more to go on. Retired Pirate: Typical extra-life role. When I get 'em, I sometimes try to bait attacks to prevent the eliminators from killing someone more useful. Not always the best decision, as having an extra-life can be storming useful in late game, but something for you to consider. Bodyguard: You've got a really useful ability so at the very least always make sure to use it. Some good advice is to ask yourself who you would attack if you were an eliminator and protect that person, or just keep protecting yourself until you have good reason to believe that someone else will be attacked, so that you can at least be preserved for the late game, when there are fewer players to debate over. Merchant and Duke: Like I said earlier, try to avoid making ties unless you're really confident that the extra death will end up on an eliminator. Otherwise feel free to prove your ability by affecting irrelevant votes, I.E. removing a single poke vote or placing one on a random player without any. If you haven't claimed it already, you might be able to claim it later on to help prove yourself innocent. Personally, I would like to see all of the Merchants and Dukes use their power on players not up for the lynch this term, so that we can get a rough idea of how many there are out there. Beggar: Pretty dependent on where the game goes from here. I'd rather see more Bodyguards than anything else, but it's entirely up to you and what role you want to be. There might be some pretty sweet True-Neutral roles out there, so I guess there's no rush in picking up a role as soon as it's available. That being said, @The Only Joe, if a role is taking by taken by one Beggar, is it still available to other Beggar's to take? Noble: Another question for @The Only Joe; is this a day action or a night action? If it's a day action, I would recommend that every Noble vote for the player with the most votes at the end of the turn to avoid any attempts at the eliminators inciting ties. If it's a night action... I guess everyone vote for me tonight, so that I can at least see that there's Nobles out there. In LG22, despite a similar role being mentioned in the sign ups, it turned out there were none, effectively turning the game into role madness. If Joe did something similar I think that would be useful information to know, and am willing to take on the extra vote if it means spelling it out for everybody. And that's about it. It's really hard for me to make plans for catching the eliminators when so much remains unknown. Since I know some people (like Stink) don't even bother reading my long posts half the time, I guess I'll do a TL;DR real quick. Avoid ties, and be suspicious of anyone who tries to make one. Let the filter kill inactives; be wary of lurkers. Eliminators without Citenzry equivalent roles will probably claim Beggar, Noble or Neutral. If someone claims to you, have them prove it before you trust them completely. Feel free to PM me. If you don't, I'll probably PM you eventually, anyway. If you're a Legionnaire with no idea who to Arrest, please Arrest me. If you're a ChayShan Practitioner, I recommend you use your kill only when you're certain. If you're a Retired Pirate, do whatever you feel like. Except sail boats and raid ports, of course. If you're a Bodyguard, protect who you think is likely to be attacked or preserve yourself until the end game. If you're a Merchant or a Duke, please try to avoid making a tie. I would personally like it if you take away a vote from a player with only one or put a vote on someone with none, respectively. If you're a Beggar, pick up whatever role you think you'll have most fun with, though you may want to wait a while before taking a role. If you're a Noble and your power is a day action, help add an additional vote to whoever is in the lead at the end of the turn, in order to prevent malicious vote manipulations. If it's a night action (which I'm pretty sure it's not), vote for me so that we can confirm this game isn't role madness. Also, I don't know how I feel about being right under Alvron. I always thought of myself more aligned with the Light rather than the Darkness, but that player list suggests the complete opposite.
  17. Amanuensis
    Well, I'd argue your knowledge is infinitely more useful than mine, since I've never even been close to catching an evil!Lopen, yet Agreed. Even though I've already resigned myself to being borderline useless this game due to all of the hidden mechanics, I do believe this game will be a ton of fun. Shhh, you're only perpetuating the fear by making comments like that I'm harmless, I swear.
  18. Amanuensis
    I'm very happy to see you've returned, Em. I remember you being in the first game I ever played, but that real life circumstances forced you to bow out relatively early. I truly hope everything turned out okay for you and your family. Ahahah, I had a feeling you'd join last minute. Now I'll definitely have to bring my A-Game if I end up an eliminator again, since you always seem to be on to me, for one reason or another.
  19. Amanuensis
    That is 11 indeed! Unknown Pokemon #2 Unlocked! 13 more Poke Players and we'll have all the secrets. No; this is the very first beta test, designed to only cover the basics. Items and evolutions may be present in future beta tests, however. You're right; that should read PST, not MST (my bad, @STINK)
  20. Amanuensis
    To answer this question I will cite the original post Since it wasn't previously mentioned, however, in the case of three-way-ties or greater, a relevant die will be rolled to determine which player is lynched. The Unknown Pokemon will remain Unknown. They will have to be figured out via game interactions. Okay. There's either a Scyther or a Haunter. And sure, you've got 'em.
  21. Amanuensis
    And that makes 7! Unknown Pokemon #1 Unlocked!
  22. Amanuensis
    I too was struggling to ascertain the meaning of this letter G....
  23. Amanuensis
    Ahaha, oh. Very well.
  24. Amanuensis
    Ahah, well, this is more like an elimination game than a Pokemon, meaning the distribution will randomized rather than player discretion. Still want to play?
  25. Amanuensis
    For some reason the tags appear to have been reversed. Please read them from right to left. EDIT: Now they appear to have returned to normal, barring a few that have been misplaced. Oh well
×
×
  • Create New...