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
    That write-up has left me with more questions then answers.
  2. Amanuensis
    All men must die, all men must serve EDIT: Ninja'd by the GM, I must be evil
  3. Amanuensis
    You got two roles? That's not fair :[ all I got was lightweaver
  4. Amanuensis
    But but but... you told me you were a King's Wit! Why would you lie to me? :[
  5. Amanuensis
    Nah it's fine, I was just commenting in a PM about your last post and we brought up how much you mentioned me, and then you did that and I felt the need to respond but it's fine, people should question me. This is a mafia game after all. I'm actually afraid of how much I am trusted because if I really were evil a lot of people would be screwed already
  6. Amanuensis
    Given I identify myself as a patriot, it seems I'll have to vote for America too EDIT: Geez, Kaid loves to implicate me. But there's a method to my madness, as everyone should hopefully learn in T-Minus 20 minutes
  7. Amanuensis
    Just saying, but Asia is #1
  8. Amanuensis
    I actually thought it was kinda cute, as if people were trying to ship you two
  9. Amanuensis
    No idea; the quotes have been acting very wonky for me. Notice the second Bort quote has phatt's name and the date in phatt's quote is off by a day.
  10. Amanuensis
    The Shallan Debacle; a Response to the Day 1 Lynch and the Players Involved Adavantos LG15, Class G 20151106 Lynch, verb: to (of a mob) kill (someone), especially by hanging, for an alleged offense with or without a legal trial. It's easy to find a definition for the word lynch. Anyone with access to the internet or a dictionary can do it. But do you know what isn't easy? Finding a reason to lynch. And yet you may be surprised to learn how quickly people will condemn one another without a trial, let alone any evidence. Braize! You might even be disgusted. I know I am. Human life - or in this case, Kandra - is the most valuable commodity in the Cosmere, and I can't help but feel disturbed by how so many are so willing to just throw it away without just cause. Unease of the situation aside, this is a serious problem; one that I cannot allow to go unanswered. Please allow me to refer to a quote by yours truly, said approximately 4 hours before the Shallan Debacle took place. Underline mine. I was right. I shouldn't have to say this. Yet I did, and players chose to ignore my advice anyway. And for what reason? Allow me to show you: 3 votes within 30 minutes, all over a single post. This post. But why? Because what Shallan said seems off? Instinct is great for founding suspicion, but it should never be the sole factor in determining the fate of another player. Because Shallan was "saying stuff, but not really saying anything?" Because Shallan didn't "bring anything new?" Let me ask this. How many other players were guilty of doing that exact same thing across the 47 hours that took place prior to her first post? Plenty! And yet their alignments weren't questioned, their lives weren't put on the line. Why not them? Why Shallan? Because she seemed like she was trying to skate by? Well as you can now see the traitors aren't the only ones who might want to do that. If you were a Kandra, wouldn't you be wary about drawing attention to yourself, lest the baddies decide to assassinate you before you can make use of your role? I certainly would. You might be asking yourself by now what my point in saying all of this is. Well, it's simple. This way of going around killing each other is wrong; both from a moral and logical standpoint. How can you have the heart to send a person screaming to damnation based on conjencture? Given how weak the argument was with to begin with I don't even think it can even be called that! There was no evidence. No information. Just seemings and feelings. For those who weren't directly involved, how can you stand by and watch it happen without getting involved? I had done everything I could within my own power to stop it - even encouraged another player to help tie the vote again - and yet so many just watched it happen, offering defenses far too late to be of any use or not speaking up entirely until the results were up for all to see. We cannot not continue to play like this, friends. Nine times out of ten baseless, blind lynches end in the eliminator's favor. Just because we as a collective have the power to kill someone does not mean we should. What bothers me so much is how little we can even learn from Shallan's death compared to Bridge Boy's or my own. That, and the fact that I'm willing to bet that none of the three player's I just quoted above are even evil! If we are going to kill someone, it should be for a real reason, and not decided within the very last hour. We have 48 hours a day to discuss who we should kill based off what we know. If we know nothing, then don't vote! Instead of the traitors only taking out one loyalist this cycle we're now going to end it with two in the morgue. And in my opinion that is just unsat. By perpetuating this mindset that it's okay to All I'm saying is we need to give every player a just trial before we execute them. If you are suspicious of someone you need to tell them what they've done to warrant it and demand an explanation. It's one thing if they have nothing good to say or choose to ignore your accusations, but another entirely when you never give them the opportunity to speak. Just think about this for a second. Without the lynch the traitors can only kill a single player a cycle. In order to win with that resource alone they would need to land a successful kill the next 17 cycles without losing any of their own. 17 cycles is a very long time for the loyalists to gather information about one another - whether by using whatever abilities they might be blessed with or communication alone - and can only be extended by the Voidbringers and Elantrians out there. If it's true that they have a Feruchemist - which after last night I believe to be the case - we are \ providing them a ripe opportunity to manipulate and kill us by being so unorganized. That aside, let's take a closer look at those who were essential in Shallan's demise. Phattemer Phattemer is what I like to refer to as a habitual inactive. Though I've never asked him myself, I've noticed that in most of the games I've played he says very little, if nothing at all. What's interesting is the quote I'm about to show you, due to its lack of content, contradictory nature and unexplained vote. What sticks out to me is the fact that he puts a vote on another player who I also recognize as a habitual inactive after saying that he does not support a Contribution Crusade lynch* - a movement based on the idea of killing off inactives before actives in order to perpertuate discussion. Given that his post takes place ~16 hours before the lynchtrain on Shallan, it's a bit of a stretch to assume he is an eliminator for this reason. It is certainly possible that he is just an innocent bystander trying to lay low for his own personal reasons, or given the coordination of what ended up taking place was an elaborate set up for him and another ally to make a play to confuse the crew. If phattemer turns out to be evil I would bet a lot of money on either Wilson or Kipper being his accomplice, if not both. Wilson Wilson is dangerous for many reasons, but what I want to draw attention to is her inherent ability to instigate bandwagons with a vote and nothing more. Though she offerred reasoning for it (which I have already gone over) I can't help but feel like she did a bit of reaching to find them. It is my understanding that there have been several instances in the past where she has offerred a player as a lynch alternative for no other reason than her gut and others followed her example. I'm not sure if it's because of her reputation or if she's tapping duralumin, but I'm sure she's aware of this and in the event of her being evil may have used it to her team's advantage. After all, if no one followed her lead who would question her? If people did she could easily hide behind the fact that she began the bandwagon and had no way of predicting that it would begin. It's a solid defense, really. And for all we know it could be true. Still, I'm far from being convinced she's innocent and ask that from now on people practice caution when interacting with her. Kipper Kipper's last hour retraction on me in favor of another player could have been genuine, but I am not so certain. I can't help but feel that it was his intention from the beginning to take it off me towards the end in favor of someone else. Maybe he only chose Shallan because her post rubbed him the wrong way. Maybe it's because he was neither convinced of BB and I being evil and wanted to attack an alternative. Maybe it's because one of the people up for the lynch - if not both - are on the dark side of the force along with him and he wanted to draw attention elsewhere. Maybe it's because phatt and him are two peas in the same eliminator pod and had planned to instigate a bandwagon long before. I'm more leaning towards him being honest and innocent, but of course I'm going to watch him closely, especially considering that he expressed doubts about his vote after Bort joined in and still didn't retract. Bort Has been on my watch list since the second half of Day 1. Overall hasn't done anything particularly damning - however, something that bothers me is what he said right before turnover. Here's the quote for consideration: It isn't much to go on. I just am looking at this through my own personal experiences. This reminds me of the euphoria Kipper, Stink and I felt in LG15a when we made the last minute play to kill off the Captain. For a text based game on a forum my heart was beating much to fast for its own good, and I've only ever felt that way when I had a plan in the works and was eager to see the results. This is by no means a reason to have him killed, but something I want to draw attention to. Deathclutch I am not happy with the decision he made because of the fact that it misaligns so much with my own, but sadly I can't do anything about him or it so it's pointless for me to make an accusations. That is all. Creccio Has explained to me the reasons for why he did what he did via PM. If you are curious feel free to ask him yourself. I have my own opinions on his answer and likely other people will too. Ultimately I think we need more time to observe him, as well as every other (living) player I've addressed in this post. Due to the fact that my shift is about to finish I am going to end this post here. In summary, I think all of the players who voted for Shallan are good, but even then I think it's important to look over everything they've said and done prior to and make your own observations. I would like to hear everyone's opinions on the subjects I discussed, as well as explanations from the players listed above regarding their thoughts and the actions they took, if you have not done so already.
  11. Amanuensis
    I know that this is going to seem incredibly suspect but I really don't care at this point. If you are a Mistborn I would appreciate it a lot if you sent me a PM and claimed. Thanks. EDIT: On that note, if you are not comfortable doing so, I would suggest attacking whichever of the two other players that were up for the lynch prior to the Shallan Debacle that you find more suspicious. It will help paint a better picture of what happened last turn and as I have stated before, I am okay with being killed knowing it will help the crew in the long term.
  12. Amanuensis
    Literally about to lay down and than I saw the perfect opportunity to roast Stink real quick. Yes, he PM'd me shortly after the cycle started. But I don't think it correlates to his overall strategy. Ever since the evil doc last game I haven't been able to get rid of him. He's like a leech that feeds off my sanity. Goodnight.
  13. Amanuensis
    I am about to go to sleep, however I just want to say one more thing before I leave. Given that the vote change was on Shallan that means the bandwagon / vote swing was premeditated, or that the player was present within the final hour of the thread. I am mad at myself for not paying attention to who was viewing the thread / went into a PM around the time that Wilson placed her vote, but if someone else did please come out and share that information as it'll likely help us find the Feruchemist responsible for this. @Alvron: While what you say is true I highly doubt that would be the case for any role but Surgebinder. Hemalurgists have no way of knowing that they aren't the only one and every other role has so more more potential for doing something good that I suspect only a traitor might attempt that. That being said, Uninvested Crewmembers can't do anything at night and thus would naturally want to reach for any opportunity to gain an ability - even if it's temporary - regardless of alignment. EDITED FOR JUSTIFICATION
  14. Amanuensis
    My issue Alvron is that Uninvested Crewmembers are more likely to ask for a forged role. If traitors find out a player is Uninvested then all they have to do is blindly target someone who doesn't ask. making it more likely for them to find a loyalist with a role.
  15. Amanuensis
    It would be honestly better to give it to someone that doesn't ask for it in thread. If the traitors have an Awakener on top of their Feruchemist then the forge would be wasted entirely.
  16. Amanuensis
    I am very upset right now. This is exactly the reason why I wanted to be lynched today to begin with. Creccio, why did you edit retract your vote on BB last minute? That is a huge red flag and I demand an explanation. EDIT: @Wyrm: I changed my character from First of the Dawn to Davenar Leiken. Please fix this. Thank you
  17. Amanuensis
    Creccio, you can put your vote on Bridge Boy to tie it again. If you're okay with the see if the traitors manipulate the vote plan, then you should do it.
  18. Amanuensis
    I would if I could, but I can't so I won't :[
  19. Amanuensis
    As someone who was the Traitor Feruchemist last iteration, I had considered not using my ability N1 for that exact reason, however I ultimately decided that it would be better for our team to kill as many loyalists as possible as quickly as possible with hopes of taking a Kandra out of the game before they could find one of us.
  20. Amanuensis
    Wonderful, so a coordinated vote shift could very well be possible. I don't think this is the case given the stigma associated from the last iteration but that's just something else I have to account for in my analyzation... EDITED because I forgot to say thank you
  21. Amanuensis
    I've almost sent a post four times now either retracting my vote from BB or placing it on someone else. But after this turn of events I'm going to leave it on him. I vote the loyalist Feruchemists don't use their ability and we leave it as a tie to see if the traitors will (or even can, for that matter) choose a side. EDITED FOR JUSTIFICATION AND FOR A QUESTION FOR WYRM @Wyrm: Do the traitors have access to their doc during day turns like last time? I seem to remember you saying at one point that you realized the dangers of the traitors having perfect communication. I'm assuming that's what you meant as it allowed us to coordinate last time, and given what we just witnessed this information could be extremely useful.
  22. Amanuensis
    As of right now there are only 5 players who have not posted, if I'm not mistaken. Shallan, polkinghorndb, The Honey Badger, dowanx, and Zed. I do not necessarily support lynching any of them over other potential candidates, though. I'm sorry, but your first question's wording confuses me. Can you clarify? No, it's in the chronological order of the posts.
  23. Amanuensis
    Thank you Spaghetti. Hearing your perspective on today's events is all I wanted. In response, you're right. It is hard to obtain suspicions day one. The only real way to build any is by instigating discussions and analyzing people's responses or lack-there-of. While I don't practice it myself when I'm evil, a lot of eliminators will try to seem underwhelming and often not cast a vote against some this early (without a joke or poke attached). A common strategy is to say "I'm suspicious of this person but won't vote today," or something to that affect. For anyone who wants to know, my earlier opposition towards trust the HI was not my opinion. I noticed that a large number of players were agreeing too much early on. If I had not done so I think that we would have not gotten this many posts - let alone this much activity per player - without it. My intent was to challenge the majority opinion to see who would take advantage of me sticking my neck out, who would stick to their guns, who would be swayed by my counterpoints, or who would just ignore the conversation outright. Additionally I think it is useful in all games for players to consider alternate perspectives, as otherwise they might miss a crack that an eliminator could slide on right through. While I am certainly willing to die today, I am going to place a vote on Bridge Boy. I am of the same mindset as Araris, in that I would like to hear more about why he's voting for me besides a bandwagon. I shouldn't have to say this, but just because someone is being voted for by other players doesn't mean you need to. If you think someone is evil, then do it. If you don't, don't. And if you do vote for someone, please don't do it without an explanation. Even if it's just because your gut is telling to, try to add some reason to it. It's not as hard as you might think, just takes a bit of brainpower to find whats setting you off and put it into words. EDIT: Added a not I accidently left out in paragraph one. Also, if that last sentence comes off insulting I did not mean it that way. Thanks.
  24. Amanuensis
    No no no, you've got it wrong. Though my suspicion of you has lessened it's not because of the mistake about the vote. Besides, I wasn't suspicious of all the player's I put on that list. The entire purpose of it was to get players who had either posted very little or said something that seemed odd to talk more. It worked for some of you (yourself, Creccio, Arraenae, etc) in varying degrees. Your five's responses have given me a better picture of your alignments, and when people look back after my death I hope it helps them too. It's those who didn't respond yet (Spaghetti especially, since she has posted since then whereas Mail has not) that I am more convinced of being evil this round. EDIT: Intended to vote the first time, color didn't go through. EDIT2: Retracted vote.
  25. Amanuensis
    Stink: Thinks I am innocent but brings up the possibility that I am “meta-gaming” him. Stink, can you please explain this to everyone? Death: I trust that he is being honest about working towards his current alignment. Personally I don’t think he began a traitor but the possibility still exists. Bridge Boy: Retracts vote on Alvron in favor of Paranoid King hoping that it will get people off his back for what occurred in the beginning. When PK later responds he says he is going to leave his vote on him for now and claims it won’t get him lynched. Depending on what the Feruchemists decide to do this turn - good or evil - that is actually far from true. Considering that Feruchemists can only change a person’s already existing vote, you are giving them more ammo and another potential target. However, if the majority doesn’t get me killed already I expect one of the Feruchemists will ensure my death anyway, so PK should be safe. Creccio: Overreacts about my putting him on the list of the players I’m suspicious of. Conclusion: likely loyal. Ripple: Continues to put doubt into the plans of others without thinking them through fully (not including the fact that the HI can check the roles of anyone who approaches him). Cow: Being brand new to the forums I had decided to leave him off my list of suspicions. I am glad that he joined the conversation without me needing to instigate it, however his conclusions about Kas and myself leave a particularly bad taste in my mouth. It might just be because of the term he uses (scum), though. Either way I am confident Kas is a loyalist and I already know whose side I’m on, so the fact that he’s zoning in on the two of us alone makes me wary. Conclusion; could be evil, could have a similarly aggresive play style to Deathclutch in MR9; more observation necessary. Paranoid King: I appreciate that he attempts to add a new idea into the mix, though as later stated by Kas it would not help the crew. I’m a firm advocate of players announcing their suspicions in thread so that it can reach more loyalist’s ears and give them someone to look out for. Steph: First post of decent length. Gut says she’s loyal. Difficult for me to analyze due to personal bias’. Would appreciate other player’s opinions. Arraenae: Votes for me in response to me putting (him? her?) on my list of suspicions. Sadly this does not tell me much as I am unfamiliar with Rae as a player. Could be getting overly defensive because she’s evil and I pinned her. I think it’s more likely they are a paranoid loyalist and simply doesn’t want to draw anyone’s eye. Says they feel like I am “trying to discuss without meaningfully contributing,” which is an inaccurate stateent, to say the least. Not only have I been contributing more than most players but I have been instigating others into talking as well, allowing everyone a cornucopia of opportunities to dissect what everyone is saying and widening the margin between the helpful actives, the unhelpful actives and the inactives. Overall I’d say my strategy this turn has been very efficient. Araris: Remains on my suspect list for now. I don’t like that he proposed lynching an inactive. First because killing inactive players is unhelpful to the long term victory of the crew as well as unfair for the people who genuinely cannot get online for real life reasons. Second because in doing so he could have indirectly drawn votes off of me - could be interpreted as a form of defending me. Will need to see more from him before I decide whether or not I think he’s evil. Elbereth: Also new to Sanderson Elimination so I am unsure how to approach her. Gut is giving me mixed signals. Mostly think she’s good, however. Thing thing Kipper and I learned from Dow in LG15a has to do with what I said earlier about him staking out and how effective it was. I meant that Mail will likely be more active in the night turns than he will be during the day turns because we can use PMs then. Elkanah: Short paragraph that doesn’t really add much to the conversation. However I appreciate (him? her?) expressing their opinions. Phatt: I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen him post - let alone vote - on the first day since I began playing. Instantly suspicious. Kipper: Nothing of note / out of character. I became convinced of him being good when he voted for me so nothing he has said since then has made me suspicious. Kasimir: Brings up the same point I was going to provide Cow in response to why we are “stating the obvious.” When I came to join the Sanderson Elimination family it was my first mafia game ever. It wasn’t until after I finished my first two that I was introduced to Town of Salem. I didn’t have anyone in those games who stated the obvious for me, so I ended up learning a few lessons (some regarding manipulation, others ending with my death). Since then I have made sure to give out as much advice as I can, both to enlighten new first timers and to remind everyone else just in case they forgot about or didn’t realize something. Clanky: I want to say good (likely because he’s sort-of-defending me in a way that reads genuine) but then again he could be using the same tactic I did in QF10 where I said I really don’t think a player is evil when they’re up for a lynch so that when they died and were revealed good I could pull an “I told you so” and start accusing the people who wanted them dead. Biggoron: Brings up the question regarding what role is revealed in the write up if a forged player dies again. Doesn’t add much else. Receiving my benefit of the doubt for being brand new. Kaid: At first I was pretty certain Kaid was good for putting his vote on me. Now that he’s retracted it without any explanation I am less certain. Could very well be a traitor trying to separate himself from a lynch that originally began. Aaaaand that should be everything, barring what I’ve already responded to. For the record what Stink might be referring to is the fact that I was having a lot of difficulty posting in LG15a because I was too distracted by all the discussion we were having in the doc. I complained about it repeatedly because I would finish a sentence and get drawn back into it for another 20 minutes or so before writing another and so forth. Basically I think he’s saying I wouldn’t be able to do everything I am doing now if I’m evil again this round. EDITED FOR SPELLING/GRAMMAR ERRORS
×
×
  • Create New...