DrakeMarshall

Unintentional deceit is not wrong at all. If I believed that it was raining, and told you so, but later learned that I was mistaken, why on earth would that be morally wrong of me? I fully believed I was telling the truth, at the time. As for sarcasm... Well that depends. Are you using a sarcastic remark that simply amuses everyone? Or are you trying to hurt someone with it? Or are you maybe using it to argue against something that is wrong? Or are you using it to argue against something that isn't wrong? Most of the time, it's some mix of all of those, 'cause people aren't perfect, and our intents are never purely good or purely evil. And the problem is compounded by the fact that we aren't even that good at discerning the finer points of our own intents, let alone those of other people. Obviously, ethics is complicated.

Wait really? Well shoot. Okay.

Suggestion: Make a role called the Marshall of Drakeface Suggestion 2: Don't take my suggestions seriously. Also, you're going to want to be careful about giving people open ended abilities. SE players in general are a rather devious lot, and if you aren't careful they'll break the system.

Lies are a tricky business. Aren't idioms, in the most literal sense, basically lies? Pattern said as much. They're just lies that we all know about. Society is built on those kinds of lies. What about a lie that is in essence a simplification, which ultimately serves the purpose of making a concept easier to understand, ultimately enlightening people, which is in fact the polar opposite of deception? I have to conclude that what matters is the intent.

Well that's irritating. I was starting up an analysis post and it got deleted. Still, I wasn't that far in. Point is, possibly for the first time ever, I'm skimming through the entire history of the game and analyzing posts. My focus is going to be on Yitzi, seeing as they are a known eliminator. Well, with one caveat, I'm skipping the first day cycle because that cycle was massive and mostly irrelevant. Well, I'm mostly skipping it anyway, there are some things about that. Things I've noticed: Day 1, three people voted on Yitzi. D1 bussing is rare, and I'd particularly say that of those three, I think Lopen is more cautious than that. So I'd lean village on those people. Oh also, Randuir voting on neutrals. Personally I don't think an eliminator would have any good reason to vote on a known neutral. And Rand obviously isn't the PO. So I'd say that particular action makes me lean slightly village. Also, Stick requested that people use bronze on Yitzi, then later edited in that maybe not since bronze can't alignment scan. This is interesting, but actually not terribly alignment indicative because I'm betting the eliminators have a smoker. It feels like the elims basically always have one Flash posts a list of reads. Strongest two elim reads are Rae and myself (neither of which are elims I assure you ). But the third, final, and least certain eliminator read is Yitzi. That's interesting. I'll want to look at how the voting went on the cycle that Yitzi got lynched to form a more solid opinion about this. Distancing without actually putting Yitzi up for a lynch could be the work of an eliminator... Or could very easily be a villager who rightfully thought Yitzi was acting suspiciously. Yitzi mentions that the Jondesu lynch d1 narrowly saved him. But there's another thing I found very interesting: Obviously eight people can't all be eliminators. But that's an odd way to rationalize the switch to Jondesu. Yitzi seemed to be trying to nudge people to thinking that the eliminators played no role in the switch. Plus, it really, really sucks to lose a team mate on the first cycle, doesn't it. So... Rusts, this means I have to look at cycle 1, don't I... I'm not doing it. WAY too much stuff there. I'm just going to pull up the vote tally again. So... Of the folks that voted on Jondesu, Joe and Orlok are obviously not candidates for being eliminators, because we know they are neutral. Brightness is not quite as likely as the others, because she voted on Yitzi before voting Jondesu. Still possible, but I already said, I think D1 bussing is a little bit rare. I'd have to say Crimsn seems to be a prime candidate for suspicious vote switching. Although Crimsn's voting on that cycle also could easily just be bandwagoning by the looks of it, so that's a possible explanation. Still a little bit suspicious. The other candidate, then, is Stick. I'm not the first person to wonder if Stick and Yitzi were working together I don't think. But I still note this as suspicious. Moving on... Flash asks Yitzi how Yitzi knew about Aman's reputation. Leaning more village on Flash. Arin makes an analysis post, discussing Lopen and Yitzi. Feels NAI to me. Oh, also, Yitzi posted a bunch of reads. A particularly interesting one on Joe: Here he implicitly assumes that the switch on Jondesu was to save an eliminator, when he himself was the one who got saved. Obviously, that's not terribly relevant with regard to his alignment, since we already know he was an eliminator. But that assumption does maybe cement that eliminators did play a role in the switch. And he chooses, from the list of people who made the switch, to highlight Joe. That's interesting, because Joe is obviously not a candidate for being an eliminator involved in the switch, being a neutral. He also says that Joe directed the lynch, which seems like a way to attach all the responsibility to Joe and not any of the other people who made the vote switch. Interestingly enough, Stick, Crimsn, and Brightness were all absent from his list of reads, despite playing important roles in the vote switch. For someone who is ostensibly reading into that vote switch as much as Yitzi was, its quite odd to not even bring up those people. Now, we have an interesting post by stick. Yeah...I feel like elims somehow just won't let one of their teammates get lynched D1 [or come dangerously close, even], which is part of why the wagon on Jond at the end seemed better, I guess. Less time till rollover = less time for elims to try and persuade others to steer away the lynch from a teammate= better chance of getting an elim. But well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ First says some things about Rand that seem to be neither here nor there in regard to trusting or suspecting him. Seems a little bit like backtracking from earlier voting on Rand, without actually putting oneself on the line to defend him either. The final part of this post is quite interesting. It is claiming that the eliminators altering a lynch last minute to save a team mate is dangerous... And then attempting to justify why Stick participated in altering a lynch last minute (which we later find out ended up saving an eliminator). I find that behavior interesting. It's also a little interesting because the quote from Brightness wasn't really on the topic of suspicious vote changing. Is there a particular reason why they felt the need to address the possibility of suspicious vote changing? Okay, this is taking a LOOOONG time and I need to do other things. Sorry. So... I'm going to call it a day for now and get back to this later. You guys posted A LOT in this game. But... In the meantime... My analysis right now leads me to point FoS at @Stick That's subject to change as I get more caught up on the game, but yeah.

Don't you just love recursive code? LIES!!! You've been summoned by the influence of Ruin. It says it all in your name. Also, good to have you, Sareth.

No, you are never allowed to lie about anything. I swear. I'm telling you the truth about that.

Salem instills a distrust in neutrals, doesn't it lots of evil roles need to explain why they are night immune sometimes. But I'd say general policy for surv claims is to lynch the second surv claim, then the first surv claim, if the second was telling the truth.

I'll sign up I suppose. I won't describe my character in advance because I don't even know their species yet, but they can be named Kyner.

Gotta love faction games... I'll take another look at this in the morning. Looks fun though.

I agree that shards are all basically amoral. Morality is a really complicated thing. I believe each shard has a little piece of that morality right. If you put it all together, you get Adolnasium, a God that is probably truly moral. But the shards only have a little bit of that, just like they only have a little bit of Adolnasium's power. Now, while this means all shards are inherently immoral in some ways, it also means that, in the proper context, they all represent a piece of what is moral. Even Odium has some good in it. Being good necessarily implies the hatred of evil. The trouble is obviously that Odium takes that hatred and applies it to everything. It is divine hatred without it's proper context. The hatred isn't limited to only evil things, nor is it tempered by divine forgiveness. It's just pure and all-consuming hatred. And the other shards can be taken out of context to. You've listed many of the ways that this can happen. Preservation may be good in a situation where it is opposing Ruin, but in other contexts, "preserving" is not the appropriate moral response. I would like to assert that Honor is in fact not an exception to this. The idea of honor sounds like it is moral, but that isn't always the case. An extreme example of this is honor killings. Honor, at its core, is about following a code of ethical conduct. Perfectly. If you are a skybreaker, that means ruthlessly pursuing the law at all costs. Still, on the bright side, I predict that the entire cosmere series will eventually result in Adolnasium being reforged. Which should result in a diety that is actually moral.

I really like this theory. I'm not sure I agree that Raoden is likely to eventually ascend to hold Devotion and/or Dominion... But I think that you present good evidence that the splintered shard of Devotion tried to absorb Raoden to be its vessel. It just couldn't, because it's splintered. I think repairing a splintered shard would likely be quite difficult. I believe it might involve bonding with a bunch of splinters of the splintered shard. Which means Dalinar's off to a decent start for reforging Honor. EDIT: Also, @Thanatos It's been confirmed that Odium is unwilling to pick up other shards, because it would dilute his own hatred. He probably could have taken the powers of ambition, dominion, or devotion, when he killed them. And he didn't take any of them. It is possible that Rayse is killed however. Is this what you are predicting?

Well, I might even be offended if I didn't make the list. That aside, you are calling me out for participating in a bandwagon that you yourself are participating in? (I'm not saying I am suspicious of you lol... You're a confirmed village role and all that. Which sort of gets at my point. Obviously voting on Straw doesn't in of itself mean someone is suspicious) I will also note that I provided substantially more reasoning behind it than just about anyone else in the bandwagon... And at the time I had decided to vote on Straw, there was no bandwagon. If I had finished my post earlier I would have been the second vote. Please do look at me really hard. I am rather interested to see what you find. EDIT: Oh, also, seeing as I just got home. I also promised @randuir that I'd share some reads... Rather ironically, one of my suspicions is in fact you, Rand. Wilson's accusations seemed to hold some water. As for others... It looks like @Seonid's voting patterns could be seen as eliminator. And I suppose Straw deserves an honorable mention on my suspicions list. There are some decent accusations out there against Straw. But mostly I'm voting Straw just because it's preferable to lynching someone we already know is a neutral. Particularly now that STINK has apologized for any bad behavior. But honestly. I need more time to form any kind of halfway informed suspicions. I'm pretty sure I've missed a cycle or two, including the cycle that got an elim lynched, which is some pretty critical discussion for me to read up on.

@randuir you can expect more activity from me in a few hours; I'm driving home right now

I rather hope you don't believe me to be condoning toxic behavior. Of course the shard is a special community, and of course I mean to keep it that way. What I am suggesting is that there's a line to be drawn. We'll move forward better if we can properly distinguish just what it is we don't like, and what is considered acceptable. Defining that is helpful, in the interest of discouraging bad behavior. That said. I would absolutely support the notion of a policy lynch... Except I can't see the relevant communications, nor would it be within the rules for anyone to quote them to me. As such, I am in no place to judge if STINK did anything bad or not. From what I know right now, I could easily picture a situation where STINK's actions were okay, and easily picture a situation where they weren't okay.

You raise some interesting points. You believe that the meta of our community should be decided by players. You believe that in this case, our best tool for shaping the community is the lynch vote. Finally, you believe that blackmailing in all cases should be regarded as unacceptable. While I suspect I agree entirely with you in general sentiment about our community, I regrettably find myself needing to disagree with a few of your points. I would like to suggest that as a community, we should maybe have better ways to discourage a behavior then by policy lynching. I don't think that game mechanics are meant to be used to display our distaste with a certain behavior. I would also like to assert that blackmailing might not be inherently bad behavior. In a broader sense, coercion-by-threat could actually be rather common in elimination games. If, right now, I claimed that I knew for 100% certainty that you were actually an eliminator... Rae might hypothetically tell me that she would coinshot me if it turned out that I was lying. Isn't that basically blackmailing me to tell the truth? By most definitions of the word "blackmail," yes, I think it is. But would that be wrong of Rae to make that threat? No, it wouldn't be wrong at all. The dangerous kind of blackmailing is the sort that gives one player excessive leverage over another player. Forcing someone to role reveal on the first cycle, like STINK attempted, probably qualifies as excessive leverage. When such a situation exists, one has to wonder if the game is balanced. A well designed game should basically never give one player that kind of leverage over another. And... As it turns out... This game is well balanced. STINK simply never had the leverage he claimed to have. And yet, I do not conclude that the degree of leverage is actually the distinguishing factor between "good blackmail" and "bad blackmail." What matters, I think, is a player's attitude. Are the tricks we pull on each other all in the spirit of fair play and a fun game? Or is it something else? That all aside... I haven't personally seen STINK's communications, and therefore I haven't the slightest clue if what he was doing was actually serious or not.

Well huh. I'm caught up on this thread anyway. Interesting. Lots of role reveals. And then there's STINK. Personally I think it is somewhat inadvisable to ever trust STINK with a role reveal. But that damage is already done. But honestly, regardless of STINK's actions and suspected position, he's not much of a threat (early in the game) if we just ignore him. Maybe we can lynch him later if we are getting close to lynch-or-lose conditions and we are worried that he will hammer us. For now though, I'd like to advocate going after someone who might actually be an elim. It seems that the alternative candidate of choice is Straw

Interesting... This could go a lot of directions. Weaknesses though. I'm taking particular interest in that as a game mechanic

well I haven't been terribly active the last few days Sorry @Arraenae for not responding to your RP earlier. Also it looks like an infiltrator got lynched on the second cycle. Nicely done. "Lukas, can we, well, can I go inside to see of anyone has food? I know it's not lunchtime, but maybe somebody will have something?" "That sounds like an excellent idea. Perhaps someone will be willing to help." Lukas looked around for a likely benefactor. @anyone in the barricade do you feel like opening your house to some hungry revolutionaries?

Ah, more people becoming acquainted with Ruin the joys of consuming delicious baked goods. Music to my ears. Very loud music, because of this here tin spike... Never you mind where it came from.

Ehh I wasn't really expecting a turnaround I'm literally the RL version of the miller role I don't think I've ever gone a game without being lynched before the elims kill me So, turning my eye to possible future lynches: Elims can suggest ideas that seem good also. And this particular idea might actually suit the elims nicely, cause it opens up the possibility of a lot of interesting mind games.

Yes I might have just a little bit to say about the lynch Why you do this now though I hate typing from my phone Anyways, down to business. It probably wouldn't be a proper SE game without everyone trying to lynching me at some point. So... First order of business looks to be the vote on cycle 1, yes? I broke a tie. What I think you guys might be missing is that I cast that vote not knowing what happened when a tie occurred. That question got answered later. I would love to say I had better reasons and had thought about it more, but my reasons for casting that vote were really simple. I didn't want the tie to result in no lynch, so I made a call on gut read. Second order of business seems to be a comment I made about the switch from Yitzi to Arin. In summary: I acted like it hadn't previously occured to me that elims swapped the vote from Yitzi, when it probably should have occured to me already. Well, I'm guilty there. I haven't been giving this game the time it deserves perhaps. Honestly, it didn't really feel like a sudden switch because we were all online and active at the sudden reversal. But the way Randuir wrote it out looked a lot more suspect than what I had originally thought. Third and final order of business... I am told I've been playing aggressively Well that's probably true but it's not terribly alignment indicative cause I consistently do that as a villager. Now, basically everyone but Brightness hasn't actually offered reasoning. I'd appreciate some more reasoning to be honest. If I'm gonna die I might as well make it count by making it informative. But really, my defense wouldn't be worth much unless I offered an alternative, would it. It wouldn't hardly matter if you thought I was probably innocent, but I was still the only option. So, while this vote could scarcely be called altruistic... Yitzi. I've thought about the whole Yitzi thing. I don't like it. It reminds me of what Dalinar did in AG3, what Alv did in LG30. Although it probably isn't worth much, I'd like to entreat you to the examine Yitzi and consider this.

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting. There are only 4 actions you could be using on me that would make you ask for me not to use cytonics on you... And 2 of the 4 are killing actions. So why shouldn't I be worried about dying? Do you presume I trust you so implicitly? Because you had the decency to ask permission, I'll comply and not use cytonics on you. But since you made the request in public, you accept at least partial accountability if I die. I don't mean that as any kind of threat, I mean that as advice. If you are even a villager, your kinda leaving yourself wide open to be framed.

First of all, sorry all but I won't be so active for a bit cause I'm travelling Second of all, Very well I won't target you with cytonics It should go without saying though, if I turn up dead tomorrow you are going to have some questions to answer

First thing's first, Joe. I have been miraculously persuaded to retract my vote by means of a PM. Lukas absentmindedly dusted off his inordinately heavy coat, the table now in place. "Do you think they'll feed us?" she asked. "Normally, I eat lunch around this time, and I'm getting a little hungry. They won't let us starve, right?" He supposed this might be one of the drawbacks about making a barricade. Nobody here was liable to have much of a stockpile of food... If this affair went on long enough, that could become a problem. He prayed it would not. "I wouldn't count on the leaders of the cause to plan meals for us all... But I'm sure they won't let us starve. Many of the people's homes are within the barricade, and we are accustomed to sharing with each other. I'd offer something to eat, but I unfortunately have absolutely nothing to my name inside the barricade. Plenty of people here are like that... Perhaps later in the day, some generous soul will be willing to feed the lot of us."