Quintessential

I'm not sure there are really that many people following that, actually. And I guess I should stop phrasing it that way, because it's not exactly what I mean; it's just that I just played three elim games in a row so the things that feel elimmy to me are going to be the things that I could understand an elim reasonably doing in a given situation (though given my love of tinfoil, my definition of "reasonable" may be a bit unreliable lol). Some of those things are things I've actually done, but my core reason for voting Matrim is that he's said a bunch of things that I can imagine an elim saying pretty easily (not just me, but an elim in general) but I have a hard time picturing a villager (once again, in general) saying those things. And like... idk, if the rest of you don't read him that way then don't vote him just because I do read him that way. Welcome to the D1 exe!

Okay now I have to ask: what the heck did you do to Vapor in LG69??? XD

No my point was that it is not technically correct that "no one" goes into an elim game willing to die lol

Actually I would not have put it past myself to propose that plan if I got elim. I'm tired of elim XD

Actually that's not quite as crazy as you might think, Illwei. If the elims wanted to get one of their members into the group of trusted villagers through a bus then their best bet would be a D1 bus, since A. generally no one busses D1 and B. as things are right now, losing a member won't decrease the Hoard Strength, so it doesn't directly take away from their win-con. Well, not as directly anyway. At least, that's how I would do it :P. Obviously all that is still tinfoil, which we know is my favorite snack. But even if Matrim flips elim, we probably shouldn't consider the people who voted for him--any of the people who voted for him, myself included--to be totally clear. Just, y'know, to be on the safe side and all.

Basically, Illwei's saying that exactly what happened to me D1 of the AG is now happening to you. And you're responding in (more or less) the same way : P

There are quite possibly errors in this as I put it together rather quickly, but here's a VC: Gears (4): STINK, Araris Valerian, Kasimir, Matrim's Dice Random Bystander (1): Mist Matrim's Dice (4): TJ Shade, StrikerEZ, Quinn0928, Flyingbooks Flyingbooks (2): Ashbringer, Archer Condensation (1): Illwei

Fixed, thanks for the heads-up

Here's your mega-post. My notifications have informed me that you've posted again since the last time I hit refresh, but I don't want to lose this so I'll respond to whatever it is you just said later (assuming the notifications aren't just being weird and registering the last post I quoted, which could be the case). (Edit: it was just them registering that last post on a delay : P) I know you say that the book thing was just an afterthought, but the way this post is structured definitely makes it seem like the main event, while the first part was in the same vein as the arguments over the RNG plan later--yes, we disagree, but that doesn't mean I think you're elim in and of itself. The benefits have been point out already, and the fact that there's no cost has been stated repeatedly. I see your point here with it being an odd statement for someone who dies early a lot to make (ergo Striker is elim and isn't worried about being targeted because of that) except that if he got the book it'd be announced anyway so him saying it in-thread changes nothing. This was the post that first set off alarm bells for me, for like... alllll the reasons. People don't usually purposefully vote early early on D1, especially not during a Day when so little of substance has been said. If you'd been voting based on "this person normally plays like this when they're elim, and they do this thing when they're vil that I'm not seeing them do right now" that'd be one thing--though still probably not very useful since like half the players in this game decided they'd intentionally switch playstyles--but that's not what this was. This part reminds me a lot of the votes put on Straw during D1 of the AG for suggesting that the neutrals claim--yeah, you can argue that the reasoning is faulty but that's not AI. And the second part... first of all, there was never any suggestion of coordinating in-thread (not that I saw) so idk where that came from. But that was a misunderstanding and I don't count it as AI. But the part about not wanting everyone to be using their chalk in the first three cycles... well, arguing against overprotecting is, as I've said, not going to accomplish that since people will just use their Chalk for other Lines. Also, there are other items that protect, so Chalk is not the end-all-be-all of Defense, and we have Maps that can probably get us plenty enough of both those Items and more Chalk for us to sustain ourselves. Yes, we don't want to put up 8 Defense each Night while the Chalkling Hoard has a Strength of 2, but assuming we'll be safe with just 2 Defense is probably idealistic, even if we could find a way to coordinate that without the elims catching on and RBing one of the Defenders. Also the idea of using up all defense in the first three cycles feels like fearmongering to me--I was ninja'd by one of your posts in writing this and you've addressed most of my content objections to it but the read I got from it is still very very much there. I mean... on its own this post actually reads vil to me. The RNG plan has a low chance of failure and would be difficult for the elims to effectively interfere with. However, it directly contradicts Matrim's earlier worries about wasting chalk, since by RNG we actually could end up with 8 Defense against 2 Strength. And the next post kinda undermines it: See, with everyone doing what they think makes most sense, we also end up wasting a lot of Chalk. Because enough people will worry about the Defense level being too low that it'll end up being too high. Kind of a reverse Tragedy of the Commons. Well, or we get the actual Tragedy of the Commons, where it works at first but then the people who were Defending run out of Chalk and the Hoard Strength increases so the solution that worked at the start doesn't work anymore because the people who have the will to Defend don't have the way, and the people who have the way don't have the will. Basically this is just a bunch of contradictions of your earlier worries. I find it odd that you list Connie above Striker as to people you'd be ok with exeing but you're also not voting her. I'm... so confused by this? I'm pretty sure I saw (and deleted 'cause I thought they weren't AI) a couple of quotes from you about how it kinda makes sense for Striker to single you out because you A. are voting him and B. were the first person to place a vote with actual (and arguably flawed) reasoning. That is more than enough reason for Striker to look more closely at you : P. Okay, so here you say "it's less about the book now"... implying that it was about the book before? But now you're arguing that it wasn't about the book at all? There's discontinuity here--vil!you would have no reason not to say "yeah the book was part of the reason originally but I've realized that's not AI--however I still think that Striker might be evil". elim!you might. : P yes I agree Striker's wording was confusing there, so this is a fair criticism. Though, on the other had, I feel like saying something like that is a bit TWTBAW. Er... welllllll not exactly? "And didn't Alv say that going for a book puts a target on your back? Striker! Welcome to the game " "What would be the benefit of Striker saying he's going for books, though? I get the thing about making sure you get it, but if it makes him a better target for the elims it's an odd statement for someone who was just talking about how they die early often to make " "It's less about the book now. I misunderstood what Alv said when I brought up the book." (emphasis mine) pretty sure it was about the book originally : P People thought it was your reasoning because you phrased the post that way. That in and of itself isn't AI but you later tried to distance yourself from the whole book think entirely, saying not only that it isn't your reasoning now but that it wasn't before either, when it seems pretty obvious that it was. I'd prefer a speedy loss in later cycles to a speedy loss now. The only ways to avoid some amount of overprotection involve coordinating among the entire group, which then makes it laughably easy for the elims to mess it up. The options are some amount of overprotection (and how much is not within our control unless we mass-coordinate) now with the potential to lose later or actually just losing now. That's fair looking over the rest of these posts it's not even that they remind me of my own vil playstyle--they just feel elim. Fabricated, trying to minimize suspicion on yourself and redirect it elsewhere, building somewhat of a narrative around the importance of not overprotecting--which, by the way, is something that benefits the elims at least in the short term--and so on. Here it is! Ohhhh so so so many alarm bells... "In a village sort of way"? I can't imagine a universe in which a villager would feel the need to say that. Like, at all. If you are a villager, everything you do is done "in a village sort of way". Villagers don't have to stop and think about that--elims do. "I saw the overprotection thing and disagreed, and then thought 'hey that's kind of a skimpy reason for a vote, I remember this other thing that kinda is against Striker too' so I stuck that in there." This describes the exact thought process behind a lot of my vote posts in the past couple of games, when I was an elim. Again, not a village thing to do. If you (as a villager) look at a person and say 'hey this person is kinda sus', you would probably look for more evidence one way or another, but it's so you can figure out if your suspicions are founded, not so you have more of a reason to vote. The former is a village thought process, the latter an elim one. And like. All the rest of that post too. D1 votes don't generally have, or have to have, actual evidence behind them. Actually, later votes don't always have actual evidence behind them either. Elim!me has always felt pressure to provide "actual evidence" as opposed to just reads, because reads are subjective and can be argued with and it's hard to know as an elim whether my "read" of someone is genuine and will be seen by other people or is being influenced by TMI. Village!me (and, I think, village!everyone else too) is more comfortable voting based on reads or thinner evidence. The fact that your vote post, and all of your posts until recently, don't actually mention your read of Striker seems odd to me, since all the village has D1 is reads really. If you have an item, it goes into the Camp Supply if and when you die. Claiming important Items isn't going to help your case with us, and if you really are village it does exactly what you thought Striker shouldn't do--it paints a target on your back. Village!you would be worried that the elims would attack you even if you did survive the exe, to try to get ahold of the important item. Either we lose it this Day or we lose it this Night, essentially, unless you can argue your way out of the vote.

I... yeah, no that wasn't clear at all. You were responding to Striker saying "overprotecting is okay" with "no it isn't" which... just doesn't really address the question of whether attempting to convince people to moderate the Lines of Warding actually saves us Chalk. My guess is that it doesn't. I'm gonna have to go back through all the posts I got that conclusion from and point out specifically where I saw it and why it makes me sus of you, aren't I... ughhhh why did I hit refreshhhhh

NOooooo I had a whole mega-post written about the Striker/Matrim thing and then I hit refresh and it all disappeared! ;-; Okay, well my conclusions from it were: TJ and Striker = mild/null vil and Matrim = mild elim. A lot of what he said, especially regarding overprotecting, coordinating, etc. reminded me of elim!me... which is maybe not the way to read people since my elim playstyle is obviously not going to be identical to anyone else's but at the same time I definitely saw some amount of what looked like narrative-building (as I believe Striker pointed out somewhere). I do think Striker's comment about voting for Matrim "for having reasoning" was a bit odd... hence null vil on him. But I think I see what he meant--that A. because Matrim was voting seriously, there was reasoning to look at (you can't say a joke vote is AI, after all, because it's not) and B. people who vote with conviction early on in D1, especially a D1 like this when there was virtually no serious discussion happening at the time, do end up looking a bit odd, since a villager would have nothing to go off of. Especially in this game, it's more important to avoid mix's. I'm... like, almost 100% certain that you and Striker mean two completely different things when you refer to overprotection. Striker means "having 1 or 2 extra Defense so that if someone contributing gets RBd, we aren't overrun because of that". You seem to mean something much more drastic than that. Also, you seem concerned about us using up chalk--as if having fewer people drawing Lines of Warding is going to help with that? I would guess that a lot of people who don't draw Lines of Warding tonight, or who don't have another Item to use, will use their Chalk to draw other Lines. I know I will, if I don't RNG that I'll be Warding tonight. If you're worried about us running out of Chalk you might try to address that as well, instead of just arguing for fewer Lines of Warding. Edit: Also, I'd like to point out something that I had in my original post: there is, in fact, a benefit to making it widely known that you have a Specialization. It paints a target on your back, yeah, but everyone can see it, not just the elims. Since everyone right now has the potential to protect someone else with a Line of Forbiddance, the elims will theoretically think twice about attacking obvious targets since those targets A. might be protecting themselves, which would require the elims to use up Chalk to RB them and B. might be protected by someone else, in which case the elims would have used up a Chalk and a kill for nothing. That's why I didn't feel super uncomfortable sharing that I have a Specialization, and that's why I don't think it's a problem that Striker said he was trying to get one. Also, people keep treating Specializations like they're fairly important (myself included actually : P), like roles in other games, when they're... really... not? Yeah, they give you a boost on one ability, but that's only helpful if you have Chalk, and it doesn't mean you'll be using your enhanced ability every turn. The Items are what's really important in this game, not the Specializations.

Reading people is hard. I'm starting to understand why everyone likes being elim so much XD this isn't something you have to worry about then... On the subject of Striker and Mat, I didn't really get anything from the actual conversation; maybe I should go back and reread it about fifty times and analyze each individual character for clues or something, but I'm trying to... not get so absorbed in this game as I did in the last few. I think that Striker stating he's going after a Book is completely NAI since everyone wants those anyway (well, except the Thief and the non-Rithmatist I suppose) and if he gets it during the day then everyone will see that. However I did get some odd vibes from Striker in PMs... basically he said the elims might not even care that I have a Specialization, so it probably doesn't matter if I don't protect myself. Which, having been elim the past three games, I would wager is not the case because in my experience the C1 elim kill is generally a shot in the dark so anyone with a Specialization would become a prime target. It sort of felt like an elim trying to convince me to leave myself vulnerable... Idk, null elim for him but that's kind of a small thing so not enough for me to vote on him. Complete null on Mat at the moment. To be clear, I'll still do the RNG plan for Defense, unless we think of something better before Day's end. But I'm hoping I can just protect myself at this point : P

Oh lol I slightly understand now XD

I'm just confused by it

What does?

Oooo Ash has competition! This should be fun

In the hands of a normal Rithmatist, it automatically adds two (edit: one : P) to the Defense each cycle. In the hands of a Forgotten, it adds two (edit: one : P) to the Strength of the Chalkling Hoard each cycle. And the Thief wants it because it counts as two Valuable Items.

I don't mean the use in taking them--I realize that. But they have no reason to use the Line since there's almost no chance than anyone will scan them and see them do it, and then taking the Clock is totally NAI for precisely the reason that the elims benefit from it too.

Right... I guess... Hmmm also something I've been wondering: can the elims use the Line of Warding to increase the power of the Chalkling Hoard? I assume not, since the rules didn't say anything about it and it's not exactly thematic, but it also means that the elims have no use for that line or any books with that Specialization, which feels a bit odd to me? Then again, they don't have a use for the Ornate Clock either.

Er... what are you guys talking about? There's a vote minimum of two votes. If nobody votes, nobody dies.

Okay having read what the factions are, is it just me or is this forum-based Among Us?

I'm in! Er... name... uh. Well I've never read... the stuff set on First of the Sun. So Uh. I guess I don't have a name for this game XD

sigh Normally I would complain about this being brought up again, but Gears has a point. @Sart can we get a VC? Look, here's the thing. Normally a D1 mix (I like this abbreviation so I'm using it) wouldn't really hurt us, so the information that we'd gain from it would outweigh the potential harm it could cause (unless we accidentally targeted the village vig or a powerful rolescanner, for example... oh wait). This game, though, is different. Instead of weighing in increase in knowledge against keeping one person alive, we're weighing an increase in knowledge against keeping one person alive and ensuring that the elims don't become any more powerful. On the other hand, having seen in QF50 what it looks like when no one dies to the C1 exe (C2 was a directionless mess, to put it lightly), I'm not sure which one is worth more. Gears' argument could, in theory, be extended throughout the whole game--let the elims winnow down the pool of suspects by killing villagers but keep their power relatively low, while at the same time trying to get reads on people and only exeing or vig-killing when we're sure who's elim--but that doesn't seem very fun to me, tbh. And if we do want to exe next cycle, which I assume we do, it's probably pretty important to exe this cycle as well. That way we get our directionless-mess phase out of the way before the elims have had a chance to kill.

Alright, y'know what? I'll do it. Why not. It's certainly the simplest plan so far, and we can be reasonably certain of the likelihood of a failure.

I... hmmm. I. I don't know. : P There's probably some fancy PM-chain type way to do this that has a much lower margin of error than that. But I can't think what.