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
    Sign me up as Michael Durbin, please.
  2. Amanuensis
    For the record, I was extremely thankful for you saving me. So much that I advocated letting you live until the end. Sadly that had to change once I found out you were the role I was most paranoid about due to your potential to royally muck things up for us. As pointed out by Wilson and yourself, there were multiple occasions where you almost did just that! Thankfully Agrigar's unwavering trust in the Diagram's guidance was not for naught, and with him having enough Terris blood in him to be born a Spinner, fortune certainly favored him when he needed it most. That being said, once again I want to formally apologize to anyone who I killed, manipulated or even blatantly lied to in order to help ensure my team was the one that ended up victorious; especially the GMs. After reading through the Dead Doc it's pretty clear that the game drifted in a direction they had not expected relatively early on and that ultimately I only made things worse despite my best intentions. That aside, shout out to Wilson and Kasimir for GMing this great game for us all and on a more personal note for me, being considerably more gentle than I deserved when confronted for my actions. you all and ☮ out
  3. Amanuensis
    Unfortunately, Kynedath, it's because the Diagrammists now have the numbers necessary to control the lynch, too. Seonid.
  4. Amanuensis
    It's actually the only living role I don't know, and I'm just curious if it's the one that could actually get me killed or not. No worries though I respect your decision to keep it a secret
  5. Amanuensis
    Seonid, I'm curious. What's your role?
  6. Amanuensis
    Just read the tags, Kas. Laughed far too much for my own good <3
  7. Amanuensis
    Don't worry about it, Kyn. I understand completely. Whatever it takes to win, right?
  8. Amanuensis
    I'm not happy about it, but yes, Clanky was a Diagrammist.
  9. Amanuensis
    So, we should seriously discuss using the Coinshot as a secondary lynch. It's been brought up the past two night cycles but no one has actually followed through with voting. So allow me to begin. Mailliw. I'll go through everything you've posted and analyze it, but this is mainly under the pretense that you have not yet sent me a PM trying to phish my role from me. Theory is either the player I revealed it to N1 or N2 is in cahoots with you, so you never felt the need to try. If I'm right, it's most likely the player I told N1 as you had likely started your usual information gathering sooner rather than later, but I haven't ruled out the player I told N2 yet. Will begin searching through your posts for any suspicious soon.
  10. Amanuensis
    Just realized I hadn't share any alignments this cycle, so I'll go ahead and give you Jain's. She was a Son of Honor. I was just unhappy that someone messed with my kill order. @Lopen. I will reveal the alignment of whoever you end up lynching, if that's what you guys decide you'd prefer.
  11. Amanuensis
    I want to say that Stink has gone to bed and will be unable to defend himself, Mail, though there's a chance he'll just show up again in fifteen minutes like he usually does whenever he tells me he needs sleep.
  12. Amanuensis
    Adavantos. 12 out of 27 votes is not a terrible turn out, I think. Could be better, but.
  13. Amanuensis
    I understand exactly where you're coming from, but want to ensure you that was not my intent. I used statements like "I can see why someone would" and "perhaps it's just because I'm a bit of a stickler" to infer that I'm uncertain if it's actually relevant and am actively trying to resist my first response to it, which is to question it as over the top. Also, I said "I would like" at the end there specifically so people could see I'm not forcing anything onto them, but provide them my perspective so they can look at something they might have not thought as suspicious and say "oh, I can understand why that might come off as odd." I guess I don't see it as hypocritical due to the context of the situation? I wasn't trying to say that making comments meant to be amusing is a problem, just that in some circumstances they do have a legitimate impacts on post analysis, and thought it was a worth while point to bring up. My ultimate conclusion about Hero was that he was innocent, just said some things that triggered gut feels for me in the beginning that made me wonder about his intent. As for the question for Stink, specifically. I mean, he kinda set himself up for that. And in asking the only way that it could be considered overcompensation (in my opinion) is if Stink and I were both Spiked together. Also, I did expect him to answer seriously, because I also don't believe he is Spiked, and given the last LG and MR, two evil players intentionally out themselves, so if he did I wouldn't necessarily be surprised. But yeah, to clarify, I don't think there is anything wrong with making jokes. I just think it's important to be aware of the consequences, and some of my pet peeves in regards to particular forms. It's good knowledge for anyone to have in the future if they end up evil and myself good. If they almost make a similar joke, they can remember this situation and be like, "oh, right, comments like this draw Adavantos' attention to me, which will eventually end with him analyzing my posts; better off to just avoid that." No worries, brother. I'm always happy to help. Comments like these are very humbling and help promote healthy growth for our community. EDIT: Also, sorry Ripple. Besides your levels of activity being in that gray area of where I find it hard to trust anybody from it and your sudden vote on Hellscythe, I don't have enough reason right now to condone your death. However, I really don't like Hellscythe or Haelbarde as options to lynch, either. Though the former has done a lot more attention grabbing things it's nothing new for him, and the latter seems somewhat trustworthy other than his senseless defense of me, which makes me equally as wary of him as any player who tries to implicate me without directly confronting me. Will think about an alternate candidate to present other than those two, yourself and Stink, but I may just leave things alone to see what the emotional allomancers do.
  14. Amanuensis

    I play my music in the sun

    1. Amanuensis

      Amanuensis

      AG2 - Reference to the song The Joker by the Steve Miller Band - Line in song states "I'm a smoker." I was a Smoker this game.

  15. Amanuensis
    I've got a question, Stink. Are you Spiked?
  16. Amanuensis
    True Hero? Or just a Wannabe? A Case by Gidomara Grae Posted by Herowannabe on 26 December 15 - 12:11 PM I've seen comments like this before. They always make my wary. I can see why someone would make a joke like this, but I still can't fathom why someone thinks it's a good idea. Perhaps it's just because I'm a bit of a stickler for seriousness. If I weren't maybe I could forget about it, but no matter how hard I try and I can't help but read this as "I'm evil but trying really hard to make you think I'm not." I'm sorry, but I'm just not a fan, and would like comments like this to stop being a thing. I wouldn't read into it, honestly, if it were the only thing blue in this post; but the entire post was in blue, so I'm just going to analyze it all as game relevant. Advice? Cool! I like advice! Emphasis mine. Okay, cool. Some good advice for the village Coinshots. But wait. Use our extra kills to enact the contribution crusade? Sounds exactly like something Agrigar Leiken would do, and that dude is totally a liar and a troll. If there's one thing I've learned recently, inactives exist on both sides of the spectrum, and usually the majority is on the village's side (because, you know, there's more of them total?). All that really does is help the Spiked out. Lurkers I can understand killing. If someone is seen watching but not posting, that is fishy. But being off site for days or weeks, not so much. Even then, why care if they are? If they're Spiked and not coming on to put in orders that's good for us. They can't sway the lynch and they can't use their powers to help their team. And if it gets to the point where clearly the Spiked are inactive (lack of kills, for example) then we can begin specifically looking at whoever was not online during the current turn. Otherwise we should be focusing on people getting involved in the game, whether that's in thread or PMs, doing things suspicious and getting caught in lies. That's how we gain information. That's how the game continues to progress healthily. As for that last sentence, see my first paragraph. "I'm evil but trying really hard to make you think I'm not." Besides me thinking the Tineye advice is not particularly useful, the rest is. Whether or not Hero turns out to be Spiked, I agree with his point about revealing 100%. I advocated this exact same thing in LG15b. Unfortunately it didn't stop people from spilling their guts to me, but good thing for them I was loyal to the Captain. That being said, if you feel the need to share something, I suggest sharing it with me. I know there are some people out there doubtful of my alignment and whether or not I really have been scanned green, but I assure you, I am, and would appreciate any information you're willing to part with as I'm just as clueless as the next guy right now. Posted by Herowannabe on 27 December 15 - 06:23 PM I still don't agree with Coinshots killing inactives for the aforementioned stated reasoning. Barring actual suspicious players, lurkers are the ones who need to be focused on by village kill roles. Not players who's lives are too busy to get online at all. It really isn't that hard to find out the last time a player was online. Just a matter of going to their profile. Chances are if they were online during that turn but didn't at least post to explain their absence then they're lurking, potentially putting in orders to divide us while not getting involved. Also, the vote on Kas is suspicious for reasons but I'll wait until the quote where he explains himself later to give you my perspective. Posted by Herowannabe on 28 December 15 - 09:21 PM Overall a not very suspicious post and not much to analyze beyond his plan of keeping Wyrm alive can go both ways. I don't really disagree with this one, so I can let it go. Though if Wyrm ends up scanning green, I do think this could be another "I'm evil but I'm trying very hard to make you think I'm not" sort of situation, like what Lopen did with his one and only post. Click the link for the full thing. Posted by Herowannabe on 29 December 15 - 06:08 AM While I agree with it's sometimes unwise to let an eliminator know the reasons you're onto them, I generally think it's better to take a less confrontational but more inquisitive route with them. Same goes for innocents. Instead of riling them up, tease out the reason for what they did and anaylze it all logically. More times than not you'll find the objective truth that way. Okay, I can see and respect that. I do the same thing sometimes (see Day One of LG15 where I made a list of players who I was suspicious of [despite the fact I really wasn't, just wanted to see how they would react and get them involved in the discussion] and all of them responded except for the one that actually was a Traitor). I do believe it's more likely a villager would do something like this, but this also could be just a false defense. Can't say I haven't done things like this as a villager. Heavily implied, and even blatantly leaked out, that I was a Voidbringer in LG15b when I was actually Uninvested just so the Traitors wouldn't kill me. That being said, this claim had an opposite affect and he called it back, so it isn't nearly as effective but, he's right. People reacted. There's some things that can be learned from it. Herowannabe is suspicious of me, which is good. But the fact that he didn't try to compound on Alvron's vote on me and instead propose an alternative target seems a bit fishy to me. I would like more explanation for why he thinks Hellscythe is more likely to be Spiked then myself. I ask because historically, when I'm good, some eliminators will try to make me look bad without confronting me outright. Considering he has not played with Hellscythe before, Hero is soft disqualified from my theory that the eliminators are trying to take advantage of a volatile play style like I did in MR10. However if he's Spiked that wouldn't really rule him out, and actually make him a great initiator of the bandwagon, as they could have informed him of Hellscythe's history. In conclusion, I believe he's just an equally confused villager like myself. While I can see some semblance of means, motive and opportunity I do not think they are solid enough to accuse him as evil yet. That, and I'm pretty confident I figured out his true role, or at least the role that he really wants people to think he has, which can mean all sorts of things. I will compartmentalize this information for later. @Ripple: I will be making a similar post like this for you soon, but will be taking a break as of right now. Big posts like these are rather draining for me. If I don't manage getting to it by the time the cycle ends - which I highly doubt will be the case - and it seems you're going to die because of me, I'll remove my vote in favor of someone else.
  17. Amanuensis
    Sorry for posting this one late. Been a busy past two days. About to begin working on my analysis of all of Hero and Ripple's posts. May retract my vote in favor of Hero or another player entirely after that. AG2 Night Two Post Summaries, Quick Links and Analysis Key: Black = Player Summary, Blue = GM Summary, Purple = Personal Comments Hellscythe: Expressions of excitement (ecstatic or exaggerated?) for taking part in the death of a Spiked exactly two minutes after write-up is posted. Haelbarde: Quicklinks and Player List. Expresses surprise over results and asks what happened. Hellscythe: Three minutes after previous post he realizes that Lopen died instead of Jain and points out something peculiar occurred with the votes. Mailliw: Congratulates the Rioter (but seems somewhat disappointed?) Mark IV: Excited about the death of a Spiked. Points out a lot of emotional allomancy was involved and that for that reason he supports the use of copperclouds while asking if he can be targeted by a Smoker tonight. Asks if anyone was suspicious of Lopen because if so then they are likely the Rioter. RP +1. Haelbarde: Says that besides a Rioter moving Hellscythe’s vote and someone soothing Stink everything else looks alright. Hellscythe: Suggests Rioter is confirmed good and Venture soft confirmed for voting for Lopen. Mark IV: Asks if Haelbarde retracted his vote because he thought he put one on Jain. luckat: Posts vote tally from before the write up and after, pointing out the same changes highlight by Hael and adding in that Araris’ vote appears to be soothed as well. Haelbarde: Explains that he considered voting for Jain until Hellscythe did, and informs Mark that the last person he put on was Bort and that it remained there. Hellscythe: Quotes Lopen’s only post and votes for Araris due to a vote he made against Hellscythe last cycle for defending Lopen’s innocence (trying to deflect suspicion off of him?) Metacognition: Explains that a Rioter can change a vote to a no vote but that they can not change a no vote to a vote. Mark IV: Informs Hellscythe that his vote one count since this is a night turn. Hellscythe: Thanks Mark and informs us to count it as a vote for a Mistborn (I presume he meant Coinshot) or a Seeker scan. Mark IV: “Sure thing Hellscythe!” Hellscythe: Determines that Araris is likely the Rioter because it doesn’t tactically make sense for his vote to have been Soothed. Araris: RP +1 calling Hellscythe out for defending Lopen and then trying to turn it back on him. luckat: More dialogue about emotional allomancy directed at the GM. Panda: Apologizes for inactivity and that they will try to get on soon. Current theory is Jain is Spiked and that the Rioter who changed Hellscythe’s vote to Lopen was her teammate trying to instigate a tie, not anticipating the Soother’s interference. For why they would choose another Spiked, perhaps so that we might dismiss him later on as innocent due to the possibility of a Spiked Rioter putting his life at risk. A bit of a stretch, but personally I fail to understand why two emotional allomancers would get involved in the player up for the lynch without having possessing more information that ordinary. Could have been a test to see if Hellscythe or Stink were affected by a Coppercloud but even then, I’m uncertain. Elbereth: Explains that she will likely be absent for the next couple days. RP +1. Mark IV: Asks a question about Elby’s RP. Wyrmhero: Uses this result as an argument in favor of day one lynches, but then points out how odd the situation is. Also questions why people are openly trying to figure out the identity of the Rioter. Due to Lopen’s only post being a defense for Wyrm, he is now going to look closer at the players who advocated keeping him alive, as he suspects they would intentionally distance themselves from the idea of lynching a Tin Eye because they want PMs to end but don’t want people to think they want that, including luckat, Hero and Orlok. Kasimir: Lengthy post, trying to include himself on the list of people advocating Wyrm being kept alive and addressing several questions and comments directed at him from the last cycle. Wyrmhero: Accuses Kasimir of being insane. Points out that either he’s a villager who thinks PMs are more important than his own life or a Spiked who knew he could be saved from a lynch. Kasimir: Responds to Wyrm’s comments regarding a previous statement of his involving information. Talks down his role in the greater scheme of the game compared to Wyrm’s and makes some l33t chess analogy. Mark IV: Asks the GM how will we know if all the Tin Eye are dead and if a Mistborn roles Tin for a cycle if they’re both dead. RippleGylf: Is surprised by lynching an eliminator day one. Indirectly congratulates the emotional allomancers. STINK: “I don’t feel anything about that result.” Adavantos: Votes for Haelbarde due to his poke vote on Lopen as soon as the last turn began, believing it was an attempt for him to get his teammate involved. Asks Kas who informed him for a third, non-burning Smoker. STINK: Points out to Adavantos that his last post was a joke about being soothed. Mark IV: Posts encrypted message and says he will reveal code later. Kasimir: Informs Adavantos both Hellscythe and STINK claimed being in contact with a non-burning Smoker. Adavantos: Asks Hellscythe where he heard about his non-burnign Smoker. Weiry: RP +1 about not expecting the results of the lynch. Mashadar: Expresses joy of killing the Spiked’s protective role, and suggests we use the Coinshot/Mistborn to kill another target tonight, to be decided on via votes. Hellscythe: Informs Kasimir that Stink and he are in contact with two completely different smokers and suggests that Stink’s is the evil one, but points out the possibility of multiple evil Smokers. Asks Coinshots to go after inactives and presents a list of who he considers inactive. Adavantos: Day One Post Summaries, Quick Links & Analysis. Mailliw: Suggests Hellscythe take Ripple, STINK and Weiry of his inactive list. Weiry: Responds to Hellscythe’s previous post, saying he thinks going after players who are not present is odd. Also thinks that as a collective we should come up with a definition of inactive, as some people may be deliberate in their lack of contribution and others may be genuinely AFK. Metacognition: Answers Mark’s question and confirms there are at least two Tin Eye. Ripple: Responds to Hellscythe’s inactive list, citing that she has already explained why she hasn’t been very contributive to the game so far. Orlok: Also responds to Hellscythe’s inactive list, explaining that he doesn’t want to get too involved too early because he has a tendency to tunnel on certain players that way and it affects his long game poorly. Agrees that Smokers should continue to not use their ability and that either Wyrm or Kasimir get scanned by the Seeker. Hellscythe: Apologizes if he seems like he was trying to attack Weiry, Ripple and Orlok with his inactive list. Explains why he thinks players only posting RP is neutral and a great way for eliminators to hide in plain sight. Adavantos: Asks Hellscythe again why he thought Lopen was innocent enough to defend him last cycle. Hellscythe: Says it would be better to explain if he could show us his PMs and asks if he is allowed to copy and paste them into a post. STINK: “Paraphrase them.” Hellscythe: He paraphrases them. phattmer: Apologizes for inactivity. Says he has nothing to contribute yet but will be on every cycle from now on. STINK: Also disagrees with being on the inactive list. Haelbarde: Responds to Adavantos’ suspicions expressed in post 37. Alvron: Informs the thread that he was contacted by a Lurcher D1 who said they would protect him but kept the information to himself because he suspected they were trying to play him, but with Lopen being outed as the Spiked Lurcher he is willing to be a Seeker’s proxy. Adavantos: Does not like Hellscythe’s reasoning for defending Lopen. Is sated by Hael’s previous post. References a similar situation involving Alvron in LG15b. Haelbarde: Understands why Adavantos is still suspicious of him but asks to not be killed by the Coinshot. STINK: Off topic, not going to acknowledge. Hellscythe: Suggests that just because a Spiked Lurcher is dead it doesn’t mean there isn’t another. Apologizes for defending a Spiked player pure on gut. Alvron: Responds to Hellscythe’s post, claiming that the player is probably telling the truth (I severely doubt it) but has not ruled out all other possibilities. Hael: Points out that by asking to get Seeked it’s possible a Spiked Smoker could cloud him to intentionally mess with the scan. Hellscythe: Is thankful there are more options for a Spiked Smoker to choose from. Adavantos: In defense of what Hael said, asks that all village Smokers do not use their cloud tonight so that if Alvron does not confirm being seeked then they can all be tested with emotional allomancy to make sure that they didn’t lie. Alvron: Points out the possibility of a Smoker who hasn’t claimed at all. Adavantos: Explains that if that were the case we’d gain even more information. Mailliw: Suggests Sart be killed by the coinshot with no explanation. Adavantos: Votes Panda get coinshot due to being suspicious of the amount of emotional allomancy involved in her almost-lynch. Mailliw: Thinks it’s fine if Smokers only cloud themselves, and asks if it’s possible for a Smoker to cloud someone else but not themself. Adavantos: Clarifies Smoker’s power and why it’s important they don’t smoke themselves as it’d make us waste time trying to figure out which one is evil. Mailliw: Points out how important that kind of discussion is. Adavantos: Agrees that discussion is critical but an innocent implicating themselves is counterproductive to us winning. Explains why he thinks it’s best for village Smokers to just not cloud this early in the game, in particular due to the effect it’d have with Seekers from either side. Hellscythe: Points out the development of another IKYK from post 67.
  18. Amanuensis
    For the record, Hellscythe's eccentric reaction of killing a Spiked - posted exactly two minutes after the write up was posted - followed by him posting again three minutes after that implying he thought it was Jain and not Lopen he killed seems far too quick / natural for me to not think he is innocent. As such, I am considerably more suspicious of Herowannabe, Wyrmhero and RippleGylf for voting for him. Seems like the Spiked might be trying to take advantage of Hellscythe's hectic play style to sway the lynch in their favor to me, just like I did in MR10. For that reason I think I’m going to vote for… Ripple. I’m about equally suspicious of her and Herowannabe but since this is the latter’s first game in a long time I’ll give him some leniency for now. That being said, this is temporary until I finish compiling and analyzing each player’s post. EDITED TO RETRACT VOTE
  19. Amanuensis
    Haven't you read my member title? It clearly states that I'm totally not a troll. That being said, thanks glad I could help. If I didn't do what I did, I can't even imagine what position everyone would be in right now.
  20. Amanuensis
    Not going to lie, these last couple cycles have been extremely fun. I just hope that no one - including the GMs - harbor any hard feelings for me after this Also, whoever Illuminated my kill onto Jain. I will find you and I will kill you.
  21. Amanuensis
    The Seeker, the player they scanned N1 that I have yet to reveal, and myself.
  22. Amanuensis
    I wouldn't mind seeing if any of the Smokers decided to burn despite telling me they wouldn't but since the Seeker didn't scan Alvron I don't really see a point as of right now. I also realize that in planning the Seeker to scan Alvron, assuming he is village, a Spiked Seeker could have just decided to not even smoke themselves since they knew they wouldn't be in danger of being found out, so even that wouldn't have ended up proving anything. For the record, I think I trust Alvron is innocent. Less so his Lurcher, but I want to say that if he were Spiked he would have brought it up in his doc first to see if they wanted him to call me out or not. It was a pretty fast response, so either he's just a confused villager or a majority of his teammates were active at the time and quick to respond in the doc. Former seems more probable. Plus, there's a good chance if he was Spiked he would have just gone along with whatever I said to extort information out of me. On top of lynch votes this cycle, I would like everyone to weigh in on who they want the Seeker to check tonight. Feel free to vote for it in Violet, because democracy.
  23. Amanuensis
    Well, there's quite a few scenarios that could explain why I did what I did. I won't bother mentioning the possibilities and just give the straight fact. I don't trust Alvron or his claim of being Lurched and wanted to see what he would do. Like you claiming Tin Eye D1, I gained a lot more information from doing this than I would have just coming out as a proxy on my own.
  24. Amanuensis
    Figured you would be more direct if you weren't simply just testing my resolve. Up to that point you didn't explicitly state that I was wrong and didn't think backing down from my initial claim would make the situation seem any less suspicious. If I was right and you believed me I would have had you thinking that until the end of time if necessary in order to protect the real Seeker's identity.
  25. Amanuensis
    Well, won't bother denying it. It's true. I expected you to ask me about this in our PM instead, but since you went around and told everyone I might as well throw all pretenses aside. For whatever frustrating reason the real Seeker decided to scan me last night instead of Alvron. I figured that instead of coming out myself I would first try accusing him of being a self-protecting Lurcher to see how he would respond. Thought he'd confront me about being wrong in PM first so I could tell him what's really going on, but then jumped the gun by bringing it straight to here. If he had asked first, then I could have explained that the Trusted Trinity didn't have a reason to believe he was innocent currently, but would be willing to use him as a proxy for a proxy until we could eventually get around to scanning him when we actually believed it was safe to say he wouldn't be clouded. Instead the Spiked now know that I am in contact with a Seeker, which puts my life in considerable danger, and I definitely don't have the luxury of protection. And for the record I don't trust the Seeker just because they got my role right. They could be a Spiked Seeker, for starters, but I've told one player my role every cycle so far, and one of them in particular I'm extremely suspicious of. It's possible one of the players I told my role to is Spiked along with the "Seeker" and the player they scanned N1, but I'm inclined to believe that's not the case because if so they just handed me the names of three Spiked players on a silver platter. It's more likely that this one is a legit Seeker, Spiked or not. Anyway, beyond myself, I won't share the identities of the player's who the Seeker has scanned unless they turn out to be Spiked or they are sitting on the precipice of being lynched. This is to prevent the Spiked from finding out who has specifically been confirmed good and picking them off to prevent us from coordinating. For the time being that seems like the best option.
×
×
  • Create New...