Oudeis

This is officially the last time I will reply to you, especially if you yet again ask for something I've already gone over. If you read the post I linked to last time, I explain why exactly I picked you. I'll go over it this one last time; from now on, I'm ignoring you unless you have something new to say, or ask a question I haven't already answered. It looks like you're just yelling and making noise, hoping to make me look bad, unless you truthfully just don't care enough to read the posts I link you to before you start hurling accusations. Obviously, a few actual Villagers hopped on the "let's kill Grayv" wagon; ironically this means that the later votes are more likely to be human, because by then it had "bandwagon" momentum, meaning we should look at the earlier ones. Quinn voted first for Gray. Maybe he was Spiked and it was all part of your plan that way, or maybe he was human, and you, as a Spiked, decided to guarantee that a villager died by using Quinn's own vote in your favor. Yes, I realize it's still a bit arbitrary and no, I'm not at all sure it's true. But that's my reasoning, as I've posted up on this forum ever since this day has been a few hours old. Anyone who wished to refute it has now had a day in which to do so. Clancy: I am very sorry, I am coming off as far more belligerent than I mean to. This game is far more frustrating than I had thought it might be. I find people demanding I explain myself over and over, while I keep trying to link them to all of the previous times that I have explained myself. But that is no excuse. I have long held that the measure of a man is how he deals with stress, and I have not been dealing with it well. I apologize for how I've treated you. I am a poor, humble villager, no powers, there's nothing special about me. I tried to point out a few logical steps, seeing if anyone would agree with me, and for my trouble people are yelling for my blood, and their stated purpose is "he is trying to play the game." Best case scenario, I'll likely be dead within days, though hopefully I'll have given the other villagers the help they need to win in my memory. Worst case, I'm simply wrong, which I admit is more than possible. If doing nothing were a viable option, I would advocate that, but it isn't. It's possible my actions will result in the death of two good men, two valuable tools in the fight against the Spiked. I honestly see no clear path to victory. The Spiked will kill again and again every night, and we've barely scraps of information with which to fight back. It turns into a guessing game on our part at best, or a witchhunt at worst, as people try to "read faces" over the internet and across time zones. If anyone offers a plan that isn't predicated upon assumptions, speculation, and "well it's what I would have done" or "well they'd never be that stupid", I am all for it.

Voting as a block is the best idea. I'm not opposed to block-voting as a whole, my objection is that I'm pretty sure the ones who did it yesterday are evil. It's a political tactic known as "log-rolling". They're helping me out today, I'm helping them out tomorrow. For me, sticking with my guns doesn't just mean I vote my one vote, it means I try to bring about the circumstance I want to see. I have reached a compromise with Aether and Clancy; they're getting my help tomorrow in exchange for their help now. Every villager voting on their own only helps the Spikes. The villagers win by sticking together. That's how this game goes. Finally; Clancy, I hope you get this message before the timer runs out. Please change your vote. I'm just saying, if this is your way of trying to game the system, and you're counting on just claiming tomorrow, "oh gee, sorry, I totally wanted to vote with you, it was a mistake," I'm just gonna tell you right now that you'll have to be very convincing to get me to buy such a story.

I don't buy into the "anti-ruin" thing, but the first part is largely the point I was trying to convey; though I don't know if you know how much it upsets me when people act like Intents are all that matters. It's possible that the system of Returning has begun, and she cannot simply stop it just because she wishes to, and she is somehow prevented from just showing up to people and saying, "Yo, Idrians, you should totes be giving your Breaths to the Returned. Peace!" My personal belief is that it's a matter of being a Shard, not that she "can't stop endowing". I think that Shards have rules and restrictions entirely separate from their Intents.

Am I doing right or wrong? My heart feels so numb This is much too hard for me; I can't do the sum. Beetle, you do have a slight point, but not much of one. I'm just going to stick with my guns, rather than try to change this whole thing. I am sorry, and I would feel much better if I were certain of anything, but I'm not. I'm just going with logic and probability here.

I think one of the Mistborn books annotations of the dedications mentions that the first was a typo or something, and it's just become a joke ever since.

I have already given my reasoning. If you don't care to re-read the whole thing, here's the short version. We are all voting together now because I have given a reason to do so. I have explained my logical conclusions, which no one has argued against, and other people have decided that my theory holds merit. We are voting together for a reason. These seven voted for Gray, teaming up, without explicit reason. Only two groups of people teamed up. None of them gave very good reasons; it was always "oh I just feel like voting for this person," not, "we all have this specific reason to find this person suspicious". The Spiked know who is Spiked, and they know who isn't. They are the ones with the best capacity to team up and try to kill a villager via voting in the daytime. Is it the best reason? No, of course not. If anyone playing this game was able to show incontrovertible proof that "hey, this person 100% is Spiked" there would be no debate, we'd all be voting for that. Don't bother telling me I'm not 100% right, because I know that I'm not. I firmly believe there's a good chance we have chosen the right person to kill, but of course I can't guarantee it. Anyone who wants to suggest a better system, please feel free. If you're just going to tell me I'm wrong, then I'm sorry but you're not helping. Telling us not to take our course of action, without telling us what course we should take, is how the Villagers lose this game. And please, please, PLEASE spare me one more person chanting out, "Darnam wants to kill someone! He must be a Spiked!" For the love of the Survivor, that is the point of the game. If you are able to, please point out any flaws in my logic. If you're just going to tell me I have to be evil, literally for no reason but, I'm trying to get people to vote for someone, and that therefore everyone should agree with you and vote to kill me... please tell me you at least see your own hypocrisy.

This happens in every game I play. I present logical, intelligent reasons, a few people listen to my ideas, and a bunch of other people react with, "Wait, he's getting people to vote with him? HE MUST BE EVIL!" Guys. Getting people to vote with you is literally the point of the game. Beetle, in the very same breath that you use to tell me I'm probably evil for getting people to vote together, you then ask someone to vote with you. Well, which is it? If you think my basic reasoning is flawed, say so. If you're just going to claim that anyone who manages to present a clear reasoning must be evil... well, then why are we even playing this game?

Hrm... I honestly don't know. I personally prefer staying the course. The one thing I know for certain is, I'm a Villager. I don't really see Beetle's claim as strong evidence for or against him. This might be the wrong move, but in past games like this, I've done better by sticking to my guns, unless I'm presented with strong evidence. I'm sorry. I realize it makes me look obstinate, or like I'm digging my heels in. We've got the votes for Beetle now. I'd rather just stick here, and not try to get seven people to change their votes and muddy things up. Also, you raise a good point. Clancy currently has two votes in red; his original post he never changed, and his swap to Beetle. What happens if we reach the end of the day and he's got two votes active? Will it simply invalidate his vote, or will Meta count the most recent one, the one that expressly says "I am changing my vote from Edgar to Beetle" regardless of color choice?

And, for the tenth time, YES WE DO LOSE SOMETHING BY WAITING. We kill someone at random, instead of someone we think is actually spiked. You're offering no alternatives, just telling us not to pick someone we actually suspect. also... wow yeah, math. Sorry. I got my AMs and PMs confused. I haven't explained why the Coinshot sat on his hands that second night, but you haven't explained why he did the first night. We know that the coinshot did sit on his hands the first night. I'm not saying it's the choice I would have picked, but it's evidence that he's not willing to kill someone when he's got a 1/4 shot at best of taking out a Spiked. Your argument is based on the premise that someone we know didn't take the chance the first night absolutely, 100% did the second night, simply because it's what you would have done. You're also assuming the Spiked have no idea who the Lurcher is, and you're assuming that they simply won't take a 50/50 shot to kill off a Seeker which, if your plan is right, would help us out a lot. And even that's assuming that you're right, and the Lurcher will do what you tell him, and doesn't choose to protect himself, or maybe someone else. You're making three or four assumptions that people will absolutely act the way you personally would act. I'm sorry, but that is nowhere near good enough to convince me that we should change our plan. Look. I don't mean to upset you, but it looks like I am. I really, really am sorry about that. I don't think I'm simply "digging in my heels". I've presented my case, and you've presented yours. I've told you the holes I find in your plan, and you've explained to everyone how you think those holes are covered. I don't agree with you. I'm going to keep my vote as it is. Perhaps you've changed the minds of others. There is, I admit, a very slim chance that you're right. And there's a decent chance that I'm wrong. But without a much better reason to pick someone else other than Beetle, I'm sticking to my guns.

Note: Claincy, I'd appreciate if you put your outdated vote for me in green, kthnkx. Makes a man a bit nervous seein' his name all red like blood like that. Right now, by my count, we've got seven people voting for Beetle. Kurk, I don't think you've got a point. You keep acting as though it's likely that we'll let them both go, they'll both survive predation by the Spiked, and will both confirm each other. Every step of your plan is massively unlikely, and there's enormous risk that we simply lose everything. It's been a struggle getting a coalition that's resistant to Rioting/Soothing as it is, and I'm not going to try dismantling it, and redirecting everyone, in the next seven hours, on your slim hope that we've been blessed with a pair of Seekers. Also, gamma, I would suggest only putting your vote in red once. Otherwise, it probably confuses anyone tabulating. Porridge? Wilson? Beetle? Kukri? Maill? Any of you want to give us a hint how you plan to vote? Also, kurk: most games I've played, there've been a quarter werewolves. I don't think Meta is planning on telling us how many Spiked there are, but it's not safe to assume that there are only 3.

Telling us who NOT to kill doesn't help us, if you're not going to offer an alternative. I resent your implication that I'm doing something wrong by giving logical reasons to suspect people; that is, after all, the point of the game. Dyring has made an excellent point. Waiting for your plan, gambling that we've actually got two Seekers, all to hold off for days that the Spiked will spend slaughtering us... we don't have that kind of time. Though we started with 16 people, so actually right now it's 9 Villagers to 4 Spiked. We still have very little wiggle room remaining. Your plan is far-fetched, long, and an enormous gamble. I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me to change my vote unless you can bring me something much more concrete. I've presented my reasoning as to why I think we should vote for Beetle; you think we shouldn't just in case he's not lying when he says, "don't kill me". Also, Quinn, I believe votes are red, not blue.

@Kurk: Oh, you're right. It does, in fact, say that there can be more than one of certain roles. In games I've played of Mafia and Werewolf this has not been the case. I'm not sure I like it. It's hard enough being able to tell who is who, now knowing there can be zero, one, or even two of roles... how is anyone supposed to deduce anything, ever? Still... nope. First, you don't give us any thoughts on who would be better to kill, and you can defend literally everyone with the "hey we can't prove he's guilty" defense. Second, there's a huge flaw in your plan. I realize this is far from a sure thing, but I think it's most likely that the Mistborn is Spiked, that he drew Steel, and that he just took a potshot at someone he knew was a Villager; now, unfortunately, he knows the person is the Lurcher, and he and his goons will probably gang up on that person tonight. Yes, I realize it's technically possible that this isn't what happened, but I've run through the other scenarios and they require a number of leaps of faith that this does not. This makes sense, those are simply possibilities. So even if you're right, if the Lurcher protects either of the Seekers, the Spiked are just going to kill our Lurcher, and then our Seeker before he has a chance to detect anyone but the other Seeker. Let's say you're right. Let's say there's a chance they are both Seekers. If so, we will have literally one night where one Seeker will see the light of day and be able to confirm or deny exactly one person. At the end of this, we'll be down two Seekers and our Lurcher, and have gained almost nothing. In addition, as I've said, who do you think we should kill then? Just pick someone at random? My idea has merit. I know it's not foolproof but it's a plan with a solid basis. Killing off people at random, hoping that there's a best-case scenario that will leave us entirely unprotected with one single bit of information, is not a good trade-off against my plan. Just one man's opinion.

So you discount the theory that they simply have very, very short-term destinies? Does Endowment send them back hoping Idrians will start getting the idea, and start keeping them alive long enough to do Her (yes, I assume she's female) will? Or is it simply a system that's set up, and she cannot affect it due to the unknown restrictions placed upon a Shard's power? Do people Return with certain destinies, and it's up to the people of Nalthis to realize it's a good idea (if, in fact, it is) to sacrifice in order to keep them alive long enough for these destinies to be fulfilled? What do the Hallandren think of Idrian Returned? It's expressly stated that they see Idris as a rebel enclave inside their own borders. Do they believe that when a God Returns in Idris, the Idrian people brutally and profanely allow him (or her) to die? Or do they think that only Hallandren Returned are actual Gods, and they don't care about Idrian Returned?

Yay for inevitable betrayal!

...except that I was the first person today to start talking about who we should vote for. No one voted to kill Edgar until after I'd made my basic argument, and everything I've posted since has been either a deal, or an affirmation of my basic points. Also, I'd like to point out that Edgar is, in fact, on my list of suspects. As are you. If you want to tear down my arguments, feel free to do so, but all you're saying is, "your well-reasoned premise rings false to me for reasons I can't really explain, EVERYONE KILL HIM INSTEAD BASED ON MY GUT!" which... sounds pretty Spiked, to me. And the point of the game is not to lie. The point is to learn who to trust. The Spiked begin with perfect knowledge of who is and isn't Spiked. The Villagers begin with the advantage of numbers. The way the Villagers win is to try to make logical deductions, make reasonable guesses, and find a way to band together. The way the Spiked wins is when every single person refuses to work together out of constant paranoia, while the team of Spiked kill them all. I know that my method isn't going to guarantee us victory. If someone wants to suggest something that will, and can back it up with reason, I will abandon my plan and support it. Those who tell me I'm mistaken seem to be saying, "We can't know for certain that this is right, so let's just kill this guy" which is not any better a way to win than my plan. (Modified to remove color, so as not to throw off anyone quickly scanning the page for votes) I didn't mean to imply that we were in complete agreement, only that we were less far apart than it might seem. Myself excepted, your entire pool of suspects fit within mine. I think Beetle did have two or three votes by the time Edgar announced his Seekerness, though I'd like to point out that the Spiked might well have a Soother and a Rioter. If so, it could take eight votes before we know that they can't "save" one of their own, ten if we get incredibly unlucky and they have a Mistborn pulled zinc. In short, I just want people to realize how imperative it is that we villagers band together. (Again, let me reiterate that these numbers are based on my own personal speculation as to how many Spiked there are) Thank you for your trust. I realize it's a lot for a man to ask, especially since I can't guarantee that Beetle is even Spiked. He's simply on my list of suspects.

Well... the good news is, we know at least ONE of them has to be lying, so even if we kill off Beetle today and learn he is, in fact, the Seeker, we can just kill Edgar tomorrow. I would also like to humbly point out that this is strong evidence that Beetle or Edgar are Spiked, and that they're both on the list of people who might be Spiked according to my reasoning. @Aether: First, people are going to do what they do in this game for whatever reasons they feel are best. Please refrain from calling them stupid. Second, game theory is all about figuring out the levels. By your logic, if they all thought, "hey, let's all vote together, because no one would believe we'd all vote together! It'll throw off suspicion!" would be a smart move, since it seems to have suggested to you that they aren't the Spiked. At the end of the day, it accomplished the short-term goal of, "a villager died". I agree with you that it's hardly proof. I've read through your impressive compilation. Your conclusion, however, seem to be that four of the five people you suspect (yourself included) are all within the subset of people I suspect, so at the end of the day we seem to actually agree. Sidenote, from my experience with similar games, Villager or not I have been killed off a lot expressly because I am rather loquacious, which is one reason that during that first day, when I had nothing to say, I said practically nothing. I'm not sure I've ever seen evidence that people who talk the most are the killers, but I've seen evidence that people who talk the most get killed off by the Villagers. In short, Aether, what are you conclusions? Do you believe your theory, which implicates yourself, to be that much more sound than my own? I offer you the same deal I offered Clancy. You seem to think that Edgar is suspicious, per your posts. If you'll vote with me against Beetle today, regardless of how it turns out I will vote for Edgar tomorrow. Trust has to start somewhere. As Kelsier says, it's better to trust and be betrayed than to live your life in paranoid fear.

Emphasis mine. I don't think the mistborn gets to pick which power he gets. Also, the Coinshot is a Villager-only rule. If the Coinshot chose to snipe someone, presumably he had a reason to. Meaning either he guessed right and the Lurcher for some reason saved a Spiked person by mistake, or he guessed wrong and lucked out and the Lurcher saved a Villager... or, I propose that the most likely situation, the Mistborn is Spiked, pulled Coinshot, and chose to try to eliminate a Villager. He knows who all the Spiked are, meaning he knows who the Villagers are... and unfortunately, this means he knows who the Lurcher is now, and can tell the rest of the Spiked. That's bad. The Mistborn is a powerful random element, and having him on the bad guy's side is NOT good for us. I'm aware that my supposition is largely speculative. I very much hope I'm mistaken, so if anyone can pick at my reasoning and find a flaw in it, please do so. I'll feel better knowing things aren't as dire as they appear. I have thought of another scenario, but one not much better for us. The Coinshot might suspect he knows who is Spiked, and attacked that person. He might possibly have been right. If so, perhaps the victim was the Mistborn, and drew Lurcher, and saved himself. This still means a Spiked Mistborn. Actual Coinshot: I just wanna say, I personally encourage you to take out any of the people who voted for Gray. I realize we don't have a guarantee that the Spiked are among these seven people, but I've presented my reasoning, and I think doing it for this reason is better than just guessing at random again. If and when we get new information that allows us to make better choices I'll lead the charge to change, but until then, this is what I see as the way to move forward.

As for the "why would burning it multiple times keep increasing you strength," I don't have the quote on me, but I suspect you're referring to a now rather famous WoB. The specific line that people tend to read as you just did is something like, "If most Mistborn were to burn lerasium, it would make them stronger." It's easy at first glance to think that this means, oh, so lerasium just powers you up, no matter what. But there's another explanation, one that matches more closely to what he says, and direct observation. If Kelsier, for example, had found the lerasium and burned it, he'd suddenly be as powerful as Elend, thereby becoming a stronger Mistborn. If Elend burned it, however, he wouldn't grow in power, because he's already at the level that lerasium takes you to. I know I said I wouldn't reply, and I am just going to let the rest lie. Like I said, your idea is plausible, I just personally find it unlikely. I just saw what looks like a common misconception, and I wanted to clarify.

If the Mistborn every draws Tin, does that mean for a day we're allowed to PM again?

All the Spiked needed to know was, "This person is a Villager," which they all knew already, because the Spiked all know who each other are. Obviously, they'd also like to take down other Roles if at all possible, but since they don't have access to the Seeker, they couldn't possibly know any better than the rest of us. Them choosing at random is exactly what they'd want to do, and we aren't sucking. We made one decision so far, and it unfortunately was not the right one. This doesn't mean we suck, if we learn something from it. For example, I suggest that it's possible that what we've learned is, the people who voted in a large block might be the Spiked working together. If that's so, then we've got a list of seven people, and ALL of the Spiked are included in it. If that IS the case, and we act accordingly, then the Villagers have won. In other words, it's very likely that we're on the cusp of victory, and therefore aren't sucking. Bart: If you have anything to add on the subject of "let's figure out why they picked who they picked," please provide it. Otherwise, I'm just going to guess that you're saying it to throw off suspicion on you. Which... actually doesn't necessarily mean you're Spiked, because a Villager doesn't want to die any more than a Spiked does. Claincy: Good point. I still recommend that we pool our votes one at a time, since we may need five Villager votes to overcome if the Spiked all vote for one person (and if I'm right in guessing that there are 4). I ask that you swap your vote to Beetle with me this turn as a show of good faith; in exchange, I promise to vote with you for Edgar tomorrow if you still wish me to. I ask this because, since you are on my list of suspects, you might be trying to throw me (and the rest of us Villagers) off of Beetle and onto Edgar. If you're Spiked, you know who is and isn't, and could be trying to discredit me by using my logic to convince Villagers to kill off another Villager. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, even according to my theory, there are still likely three people who voted for Gray who are yet villagers. EDIT: Typo.

Interesting that neither the Rioter nor the Soother have successfully used their powers yet... Do we know how many Spiked there are? If the proportions work out like they do in games like Mafia and Werewolf, I'd suspect something like 4 of them. The Spiked have one particular advantage. They know who the other Spiked are, and who the normal Villagers are. They, more than any Villager, have the ability to gang up. In the daytime voting, only two people got more than a single vote. I humbly propose that it might be a likely scenario that they pooled their votes to ensure that a villager died. I realize this isn't the only possible scenario; once it became likely that Gray would die, the Spiked might have dispersed, left him to his fate since they knew he was a Villager. Still, it's all I've got to go on. I therefore recommend to the Seeker that he start using his power upon this list of people. I think it's the quickest way that you're likely to find a Spiked. Once you find one, announce it, and trust the Lurcher to keep you alive. If we kill him and he's a Spiked, we'll believe you. If we kill him and he's not, we'll know you're evil, and we'll kill you next. Unless someone has a better suggestion, I think we should try to focus on the seven who voted for Gray. Quinn did it first, then Beetle, then Wilson. At more-or-less random, I'm going to say Beetle. My thought is, Gray might have been voting on his own. If Beetle were Spiked, picking someone who already had a vote, that Beetle knew wasn't Spiked, would be a smart play, and if I'm wrong and Quinn is Spiked, then Beetle was helping a buddy. So. This is my reasoning, and my vote is for Beetle.

The Lurcher says he can "save one person from death." Can he only save Coinshotiness, or could he save the person the Spiked have chosen?

Even though Breaths vary in strength, we don't know that Breaths and Innate Investiture are the same thing, unless someone has a WoB I haven't seen. Why, then is Elend such a stronger Mistborn than Vin, if his innate investiture should be no greater? I think you'd underestimating how much more powerful Elend is than Vin, or other allomancers. Breeze is an enormously powerful Soother, and he can Soothe dozens. Elend can Soothe hundreds. This isn't some general slight variance, this is a huge shift. And again, if you were right, there'd be some weak Mistborns, but there'd also still be others like the original ones. Over the past thousand years, someone would have been born with naturally high Innate Investiture, and also happened to have been a Mistborn. I can't prove your theory wrong, and I've prolly harped on this too much, so I'm going to let it be. You might well be right, I just personally see a lot of holes in your logic. If this turns out to be the case, I welcome you to one enthusiastic, "I told you so." =D

Well, it provides one link. It says that the spirit is the only thing aluminum can cleanse of Investiture, not that the Spirit is the only thing which can be Invested. You've done a good job finding evidence for this theory, and I'm certainly considering it; in fact, it's something I've suspected for a long time, but not enough that I've ever bothered finding evidence. It's just that your evidence so far is mostly circumstantial. I think you've got a strong case that raw Investiture is typically, perhaps even natively, Spiritual, but until we get something for-sure written in steel, I don't think you're gonna find a case stronger than that. I disagree strongly... the older quote simply says, "Here's one obstacle in the way," it in no ways says "this is the only obstacle." And the second, much newer quote implies that he hasn't decided one way or the other, so even if there was an implication in the older one, the matter is definitely up in the air right now.

While that's valid, it wouldn't keep it out of Ruin's hands forever, it's nevertheless a BRILLIANT move the Kandra could have done to hold off Ruin. It would have meant the world would have actually ended up ending, but still. It would have been brilliant!