Long Game 12: Shadows of Elantris

[Orlok Tsubodai he/him]

Kasimir, whilst it's not a zero sum game, many players make a limited contribution to the topic, and therefore could conceivably get away with making an observation or contribute to the discussion about the Gyorn, rather than the cultist - just something we have to be wary of.

My voting for Mckeedee is due to my own suspicions of his voting for me on flimsy grounds - indicating to me that he wishes to start a bandwagon vote early, which both could guarantee the eliminators aren't at risk and stifles discussion in thread.

[Herowannabe he/him]

Less than 24 hours since the game began. Number of 17th Shard PM notifications in my email inbox? 116.

 

the joys of GMing.   

[Metacognition he/him]

Kaian continued to enlighten everyone to, for a runaway (it was obvious in the way that he carried himself. He kept looking over his shoulder, as if he was expecting someone there; a nervous tick, most likely. He also, when confronted, automatically began to fall into some of the beginning supplication forms practiced by the Shu-Dereth. His clothing, while obviously new after he left, still continued to match a similar color scheme and design. Old habits die hard.), some very salient points. 

 

But, MenE thought. Was he trying too hard? 

 

He seemed utterly focused on Locke and so quickly for such a small quibble. His reasoning was logical, based on the evidence presented, but, to MenE, it also felt forced; as if Kaian was trying to make an Elantrian out of a bruise. 

 

MenE filed it away as a reminder to not get too focused on a singular person and to keep his suspicions fluid. To try to get a read of everyone within the room. Perhaps Kaian was right, but it was still too early to say. He took note of Locke and started filing information away from what he could gleam. 

His biggest concern was still over the many faces that still shuffled in the background. True, there was a strong likelihood that some of the Cultist had already spoken up, but with so many standing silently in the face of a murder right in front of them, MenE couldn't help but wonder if they were all apathetic to the cause. 

[Alvron he/him]

Less than 24 hours since the game began. Number of 17th Shard PM notifications in my email inbox? 116.

 

the joys of GMing. 

Amateur.  Try 1000 in the first 24 hours.  

[Herowannabe he/him]

Amateur.  Try 1000 in the first 24 hours.  

I probably reached that, or close to it, in my QF6 Legion game, since virtually the whole game was done via PMs.   

[Mckeedee123 he/him]

My voting for Mckeedee is due to my own suspicions of his voting for me on flimsy grounds - indicating to me that he wishes to start a bandwagon vote early, which both could guarantee the eliminators aren't at risk and stifles discussion in thread.

 

*Shrug*

 

Because of the debtor mechanic, Someone is going to be dying. There's no argument here for "not lynching anyone first cycle to keep our numbers from being thinned down." Despite what Wilson said, I myself am assuming that there are no debtors among the spies this game. Sure, the role has a tiny, little iota of offensive potential, but the role's purpose is to keep the discussion churning. To keep us lynching people and keep the main thread a little louder.

 

Bottom line of my "reasoning:" If we lynch someone today we stand a pretty good chance of hitting a villager. If we don't lynch someone, we're pretty much guaranteed to hit a villager. That sounds to me like a good situation for a long-odds bet, and when I saw some parallels between your posts here and your posts in MR6, I went for it.

 

It's a hunch, but my hunches in MR were weirdly accurate, and given the situation with the debtors, it's seems to me like good enough grounds for targeting you. Make of it what you will.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Mckeedee123

[twelfthrootoftwo]

I'd rather we aim to lynch instead of a draw. Sure, we lose a player either way. But if it's to the lynch, not only does the village decide who dies, but all the info gained from the discussion is enhanced by discovering the alignment of one of the players involved.

 

I agree that village vote manip roles should hold back for the moment (except the Dula and maybe the Monarch, who don't have much of a choice) - then if there are changes it will give us info about the Cultists' capabilities.

 

I'll throw a poke vote on Wonko. In keeping with the above, I'll put down a more serious vote later in the cycle.

 

 

Frankly, right now, if I were the Gyorn, I'd be half-inclined to let the Village and Cultists fight it out and only start converting later on in the game.

 

Could you expand on this?

[Kasimir he/him]

Could you expand on this?

Several reasons. First, I'm by no means among the most astute players in this game. I'm not a strategic genius. My main advantage comes from the fact that besides Sart and Cessie (I believe?), I was the conversion faction on a SE game, and therefore had to directly confront and think to death some of the issues the Gyorn will be weighing right around now. So if I can figure out better strategies for the Gyorn, I'm pretty sure you can too; and so can a lot of the other strategoi in this game. (And definitely, a similar strategy came up when Meta and I were discussing Padan Fain in LG7.)

Second: you may recall, as you were an Eliminator in MR4, that Wilson and Macen and Eol spent a lot of time chomping on my skinny Wit behind for attempting to answer a question concerning Eliminator strategy. Quite frankly, I'm not up to beating off Wilson with a stick again, and I don't think anyone else would normally be. (I mean, it's Wilson we're talking about, here. I'd druther have my leg chewed off by a full-grown Bengal tiger ) Having learnt my lesson, I'm hardly going to elaborate on something better minds than me have no doubt apprehended--and especially not when doing so can be read as trying to help the Eliminators. I simply felt that it was rather disingenuous to work on such a crude picture of the Gyorn's activities--especially when we don't know how this Gyorn is going to play and therefore pointed out that committing to a certain strategy leaves us vulnerable if the Gyorn chooses a different line of attack, and gave an instance of such. (Again, leaving aside my worries of relevant similarities and my suspicions for the time being. I take Meta's point about keeping suspicions fluid, but I do have other suspicions; and I'd definitely like to hear more from Phat, hopefully without my having to resort to the dreaded poke vote.)

 

Third, I don't know if the Gyorn's thought of it, but if the Gyorn hasn't, then there's no point in stimulating their creativity They only have their own cognitive resources to draw on right now. Let's not change that. Why make their job easier for them by brainstorming what other possibilities there exist for the Gyorn? It is enough to know that they exist, and that other players have undoubtedly thought of them, and so it is simply foolish to underestimate them.

[phattemer]

Well, Kasimir, my earlier post was actually agreeing with you in that we need to lynch someone- I mentioned the multiple priests/warriors because with 31 people, maybe 5-6 cultists, 1 shu-dereth, it seems likely to me that more than 9-10 people will have a role. Of course, that's not counting the Elantrians, since depending on the secrets they could have powers also, but in my opinion, there are probably 2-3 ChayShan Warriors, and 1-2 priests.

About the Gyorn v. the Cultists- Right now, the Gyorn doesn't really seem to be a huge threat. If he makes a Cultist or a Warrior his Odiv, it gets worse, but I think we should probably be able to just keep him in mind and not worry too too much about him converting 30 other people. I also agree that the Converts should probably post when more people get converted, but they might not want to do that until an Odiv is chosen since they could be made the Odiv.

Besides that, the only people that look kinda suspicious right now to me are:

Wilson: little bit overreacting, seemed like they were shooting down ideas (though mainly just because she voted for me, most of what she said made sense)

Kasimir: Your reasons for voting Orlok seemed contrived, but I can see why you did that

Mckee: First second vote. You seem like a debtor, though you kinda denied it, but you could be just jumping on a lynchwagon

Orlok: If Mckee seems suspicious, you automatically don't, which makes me think it's all a plot.

[phattemer]

Well they seemed like a debtor since they acted to sort of force a vote, but then they denied it, and I don't really see why being a debtor is something you'd want to hide, unless they are hoping a duke/duchess will try to get them.

[phattemer]

I mean that if they were a debtor I think they would have admitted it, and the other role with an incentive to lynch beyond that of a villager is the Cultists.

[little wilson she/her]

 

in my opinion, there are probably 2-3 ChayShan Warriors, and 1-2 priests.

 

Really? Because I'm pretty sure earlier, your views on the Warriors and the Priests were this:

 

I think there are multiple priests/warriors, so we can't go terribly wrong.

 

And I responded with this:

 

When you say "multiple priests/warriors," I get the feeling you mean more than two each. I highly doubt there's more than one Priest, though I suppose with this number of players, there could be two. I also rather doubt that there's more than two warriors. Normally, I'd say there would be 3 or more Warriors for a group this large; however, the Priest and the Warrior are the only guaranteed good roles in this game, and safe roles are notoriously problematic. I highly doubt there would be more than 3 or 4 in this game, and even that seems a little high. 

 

To which you said:

 

Wilson, I did indeed mean two(even so that's like a 10-15% chance), and I will have to explain later for many reasons, first of which is that I don't know if you're a citizen. 

 

Now, I'll be honest here: you've brought pretty much nothing to the table so far. To summarize the basic points of all six of your posts (EDIT: seven now, since you posted while I was writing this):

1: I agree with Winter on lynching. Let's not worry about a mislynch of a priest/warrior because we've no doubt got multiple. What about those Elantrians?

2. I'm not sure that lynching a really experienced player is good, but I don't want to cast vote because I don't really know what I'm doing.

3. Let's talk about killing someone. Now can someone else suggest someone, because I don't want to.

4. Wilson's guess about my priest/warrior mislynch was right, but I'm not going to explain my reasons because I don't know if I can trust her. Oh, and Mckeedee might be a debtor.

5. I agree with Kas about lynching someone. Let's not worry about the Gyorn. Maybe the Converts should post the lists, but not yet, since that might ruin their strategy if they get picked as Odiv. My list of suspects is the predominant people who've been discussing things.

6. Mckeedee seems like he's trying to attract a Duke/Duchess to get rid of his debt.

EDIT: 7: A debtor would admit that they were a debtor.

 

I'm not really interested in delving into this too much, but there's really not much of substance here. You're mostly just agreeing and then when people ask you to clarify or explain yourself, you make something up. Or at least, that's what it sounds like. You won't explain your reasons about the numbers, because you don't know what side I am. Okay, but unless you're evil, you don't know if you can trust anyone in this game. That doesn't mean you shouldn't discuss. Sure, if it's sensitive information that you don't want in the eliminators' hands, you should keep it to yourself, but even if you were a Warrior or Priest yourself (which I don't think you are), you wouldn't have any sensitive information that you couldn't reveal about role numbers and your reasons for believing about those role numbers. Saying that you won't discuss because you can't trust someone is just putting a stop to discussion and quite frankly, it makes me wonder why. Is it because you don't know what to say? Need to consult with teammates in a doc to get a good excuse, perhaps? 

 

But that's not actually what I really want to address. I find it interesting that you initially said that the numbers of the priest/warriors were something that we didn't have to worry too much about a mislynch for. There are "multiple" and "we can't go terribly wrong." But then all of a sudden, you're saying that there's one 2-3 Warriors and 1-2 Priests. Conveniently, this is the exact same number that I suggested. In a group of 31 players, I'd say the possibility of losing one of our very few protective roles could be terribly bad for us. And I'd definitely say that about losing our only priest. Especially since they're safe roles. In retrospect, I really wish that I'd asked you to clarify your role numbers before saying anything about it, because based on how you worded that initially, I really doubt you were thinking 1-2 priests and 2-3 warriors.

 

And you can try to use the stream of consciousness excuse. But that won't help. Stream of consciousness, if anything, would help you less, since that would mean you were being entirely genuine with every word you wrote, meaning it all. Which means you meant "multiple." Not one or two. That's not multiple. Two is multiple. One is not.

 

Yes, I know, I'm focusing a lot on wording. That's kind of what I do. The way people word things can tell a lot about what they mean. Phrasing, the order of sentences, all sorts of stuff. English is fascinating like that.

 

Besides that, the only people that look kinda suspicious right now to me are:

Wilson: little bit overreacting, seemed like they were shooting down ideas (though mainly just because she voted for me, most of what she said made sense)

 

I only shoot down ideas that I disagree with, and I solidly lay out my reasons for why I disagree with those ideas, since that's what a discussion is. Agreeing or disagreeing with what's been said previously and why you think that way and what you'd like to contribute. You did ask for a lynch target. I'm simply offering someone other than Orlok and Mek.

Edited May 24, 2015 by little wilson

[Orlok Tsubodai he/him]

So Kasimir and Mckeedee, just to be clear, you are accusing me of being the Gyorn?

If I were the Gyorn, however, would I not be completely mad to seem to play down the importance of the gyorn - and thereby bringing suspicion upon myself? Indeed, I cannot think of few worse plays for the Gyorn than in the first cycle, with no standing lynch target, to bring suspicion upon myself.

You will note that the post which earned me two votes merely voiced my opinion that the Gyorn isn't too large a threat - if we have the lists, we should either have a small pool of possible contenders from whom we know the Odiv must be, or the Gyorn delays choosing an Odiv, in which case we have little time pressure. When numbers are thinning towards the end of the game, it should become apparent who the gyorn is - or at least we will have a very small pool in which the gyorn must reside.

As such, my belief is that whilst we should keep track of who the converts are, the cultists remain the larger threat

[Bort he/him]

I was just reading this, trying to see if anyone who had already posted seemed suspicious, but have come to no conclusions yet, so I'll not be voting. I'm off out now, but if I can, I'll try to get back before the cycle ends and see if I can get a vote in. It may just be a poke vote but we do need to start somewhere.

[Metacognition he/him]

Conveniently, this is the exact same number that I suggested. In a group of 31 players, I'd say the possibility of losing one of our very few protective roles could be terribly bad for us. And I'd definitely say that about losing our only priest. Especially since they're safe roles. 

 

MenE made his way around the room, scrubbing and cleaning as he went. While it was his job to clean, it also let him listen in on conversations happening around the room. That's how he picked up on the argument going on between Sienene and Kiireon. 

 

For himself, he wasn't worried too much about accidentally killing one of the few priests or warriors within the room. They would likely reveal themselves to the crowd, if it came to that, well before the votes had been tallied. And false claims could easily be sorted out. Domi surely wouldn't allow someone to pretend to be one of his clergy for long, would he?

 

The amount of people who were proclaiming their innocence, but not trying to actually find the Cultists were growing and that worried MenE. Not only did that give any royalty the Jeskeri Mysteries had convinced to join them plenty of people to influence, but it also gave the Cultists plenty of room to hide. "It's easy to say you're innocent; it's entirely another to prove it." He had picked that one up from an argument between two thieves when he was at the market one day. It seemed to fit here as well. 

 

MenE would have to keep a watch on those that seemed to just be talking to be heard and not really contributing. It was a pretty common Cultist tactic after all. Stay just enough in the light to make it seem like you're there, but never commit to anything. 

[Guest]

Well, I'm back from camping, and the first thing I notice is a vote for me.

!

Quite honestly, I have not spent much time at all reading up on roles and such (because of my trip). I don't have much to say until I do (probably later today). I'm generally not a fan of d1 lynches in mafia games.

That is all, for now.

[Orlok Tsubodai he/him]

In case I get lynched and cannot discuss this later, I propose that all villagers getting lynched, if they own a korathi pendant, make sure they send it to someone else - it doesn't massively help the cultists, should they get one, as unless I've missed something we don't have any kill actions ourselves, so it just helps slow the Gyorn, and has a chance of preventing the cultists making a kill at no let loss to the village. Do let me know if I've forgotten something though!

Edit: fixed typo

Edited May 24, 2015 by OrlokTsubodai

[Guest]

@Kasimir

Some of us are clueless, compared to some of the more experienced players.

Agreeing with everything a more experienced player says is not necessarily a scummy move. I know that I personally have a greater desire to agree with something that you, or Meta, or Wilson says, if only because I know your reputations as players. Most of the time, what you say is accurate, so I agree.

As for the acting clueless part, it can't be helped a lot of the time. I'm clueless. I understand basically how the game works, but in the end, I've only played two games, and phattemer hasn't played many more. Occasionally, a player will make a definitive statement that receives overwhelming assent from the majority of players, and I'll just sit here, thinking, Wait, what? Why? And then, if I ask for clarification, I'm immediately called out for acting too noobish. We should all be careful of doing that.

Note: I'm certainly not saying that whenever someone asks a seemingly obvious question, they are perfectly innocent.

@Orlok

In my mafia experience elsewhere than these forums, I can't count how many times this has happened.

Joe is maf, Billy is town.

1. During the Night, x happens.

2. During the Day, Billy accuses Joe of being mafia.

3. Joe defends himself by saying, "If I was maf, I would have done y, not x!"

Because of this, I have a strong aversion to comments that say, essentially, "I'm not evil because if I were evil, I wouldn't have done/said that." It just sounds like you are trying to use reverse psychology, in a clumsy way. I may vote for you, but I don't have much to go on other than that. And, as I said, I don't usually like D1 lynches.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Guest

[Kasimir he/him]

Meta (1): Maili
Wilson (0): Kas<1>
Phat (1): Wilson
Orlok (1): Kas<2>, Mek
Mek (2): Orlok, Araris
Kipper (1): Claincy
Aonar (1): Meta
Wonko (1): Twei
Araris (1): Kas<3>

At this stage, I think I'm going to tentatively withdraw my vote from Orlok and put it where it might be somewhat more constructive--on Araris. First, I admit that the comment about the pendants has slightly weakened my willingness to leave my vote in place. Second, while I've been trying to leave my votes for longer than a poke vote to exert somewhat more pressure, I think this one has exhausted its usefulness. So. I'm always interested when one player moves to defend another and tie off the vote--particularly when one additional vote on Orlok does not a bandwagon make. Furthermore, I'm having difficulty seeing what exactly Araris's exact reasoning is--nor how, depending on what it is, he escapes the same accusations he seems to endorse against Mek. (Not to mention we really should open up the suspect pool.)

Kipper/Snoopy: None of us players here are making a point that says 'X, therefore necessarily Y.' We're all making inductive and abductive inferences here, and that involves some amount of inferential risks rather than the logical necessity of pure deductive arguments. So that the conclusion does not follow with necessity from whatever we cite as evidence is hardly the point. The key is likeliness. No one would be making any argument expecting any certainty--particularly on Day 1--no matter how strongly we word our accusations or come across.

So yes, I agree it's not necessarily an Evil move. But I don't believe in letting it slide all the same, or at least I think it needs to undergo some scrutiny, particularly when the player in question seems to be shifting from opinion to opinion. As I see it, I admit my gut instincts are triggered by agreement. But I try not to go to a lynch (poke and pressure votes aside) on strict gut, if I can help it.

What generally made me want to voice my worries about Phat was basically the reminder of Meta's dictum to always keep suspicions fluid. Tunnelling helps no-one, and I'd like to get more information before coming to a final decision Some of Phat's flip-flopping had struck me as being slightly inconsistent. Therefore, it especially caught my attention and I decided to follow up on my instinct.
 

Edited May 24, 2015 by Kasimir

[Wonko the Sane he/him]

Sorry for being overly quiet, Twei. I haven't been spending a lot of time here recently -- just enough to keep up on events -- so I really haven't gotten around to any analysis. Additionally, I will risk invoking Kas's wrath by pointing out that I am still relatively new at SE. I've held my own so far because I have experience with face-to-face Mafia and Resistance, but that tends to be less useful earlier in the game. In the real world, your clues on day one tend to be facial and vocal; while it's important to note what people say, for later deductions, it's usually how they say it that matters in the first day or two. As such, when playing online, I still have trouble reaching opinions early on, and tend to wait on concrete facts to deduce anything. That said, I will try to speak up more from here on.

 

I don't have a lot of time right now, but I will go back over everything later tonight, and tell you what I come up with, even if it's little to nothing.

[Orlok Tsubodai he/him]

Kipper, as Kasimir said above, my point about not being the Gyorn is that were I to be the Gyorn and make a post, such as I did, arguing that its danger is not as great as feared, the risk of such an action would be so high that the likelihood is low - as opposed to your rather shallow 'blanket logic' above.

[Alvron he/him]

There is one thing bothering me at moment and that is that despite all the talk about whether or not to lynch someone, no one has brought up the possibility of the Pirates/Lovers.

 

If we kill one of those then we aren't just killing one person but possibly two or more.  The Pirates can choose their hostage at any time during the game so they may already have someone picked out.  If they pick a Lover and we lynch them then we could lose three players on the first day.  I have never been a fan of first day lynchings, though I do see the value in the information it can generate, so I won't be voting this day.

[Guest]

Kipper, as Kasimir said above, my point about not being the Gyorn is that were I to be the Gyorn and make a post, such as I did, arguing that its danger is not as great as feared, the risk of such an action would be so high that the likelihood is low - as opposed to your rather shallow 'blanket logic' above.

I think I understand what you are saying, and that is exactly my point. It would be a possible tactic for you (as the Gyorn) to use reverse psychology like that. It's just a preliminary fos, so don't worry about it too much.

@Alvron: Amen and amen.

A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY

These are terms that I might use on 17th Shard in my SE posts, because they are what we use on EpicMafia and I'm a slave to them now.

maf == mafia. Also, eliminators, spiked, etc. A shorthand term.

Example: Joe is maf. It's a typical maf tactic to do what Joe is doing.

fos OR FOS == fingers of suspicion. Essentially, this is saying that you suspect someone without actually voting them.

Example: I fos Joe. He seems like a maf.

omgus == Oh my god you suck. Voting someone because they voted you, without any other reason.

Example: Did you see that?! That was such an omgus vote. No reason at all!

Edited May 24, 2015 by Guest

[Mckeedee123 he/him]

Well they seemed like a debtor since they acted to sort of force a vote, but then they denied it, and I don't really see why being a debtor is something you'd want to hide, unless they are hoping a duke/duchess will try to get them.

 

Hmm... 

 

I never denied being a debtor (There's no point in denying a role anyway.) All that I said regarding it was this:

 

My credo in SE is just to help my team as much as possible. I don't really care about dying (unless I die lamely after accidentally getting a lynch off on a villager.) If I were a village debtor in this game, and I'm not saying I am, I wouldn't bother trying to lynch people just to save my own hide, so let that assure you that my intentions are pure (or evil, I guess, but just not some sort of wishy-washy middle ground, since that's what you're implying.)

 

ie. If I were a village debtor, There would be no change whatsoever in my playstyle. I would never even think of bothering to push a lynch just to save myself (I mean, you guys realize that you still win if you die, right?.) I figured that post would clear the question up, but anyway...

 

And no, I'm definitely not implying that I'm a debtor by posting this, either. Sheesh.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Mckeedee123

[Araris Valerian he/him]

I would like to clarify that if my post was confusing, I usually have a hard time entering the discussion on Day 1. I was trying to get involved rather than to use a poke vote that probably wouldn't accomplish much.

 

As for why my vote on Mek is different than the one he placed himself, my vote caused a tie while his had potential to lead to a lynch. Of course, now Mek is the only person with two votes, so he is up for being lynched. Here is my understanding of the discussion:

Kas: Don't forget the Gyorn! Keep track of convert numbers.

Orlok: The Gyorn isn't a major problem.

Kas: I just said to keep track of numbers. (Explanation that makes sense) (vote on Orlok)

Orlok: Ok, but I think the cultists are more urgent.

Mek: Vote on Orlok. You are acting like you did in a game that you were an eliminator and you didn't respond in a helpful way to Kas.

Orlok: More clarification, vote on Mek

 

Me: I feel like Orlok and Kas are having a legitimate discussion and Mek's vote doesn't make sense under that context, vote on Mek

 

Mek: My vote on Orlok is mostly based off of his actions in MR6

Orlok: More clarification

Kas: Well, Orlok is still my biggest suspicion

Orlok: People that are more inactive are likely to only address one of the two eliminator groups.

Mek: My vote is the best I have right now a lynch is better than a no-lynch

Orlok: You think I'm the Gyorn?

Kas: Well, my vote isn't doing much, so I'll vote for Araris for clarification. I also suspect Phatt.

 

So basically Kas and Orlok had a good discussion going, and then Mek stepped in with a vote, which confused Orlok and led to his vote, which in turn led Kas to be more suspicious. I feel like the whole discussion was based on misunderstandings of the points that I bolded. Anyway, it didn't really make sense for Mek to interfere, so my vote indicated both my suspicion of him and nullified the pressure that Mek's vote put on Orlok. As for you voting for me, at the point in time that I decided to join in the discussion, you and Orlok were the two big things. To participate, I really needed to choose a side. But I didn't suspect either of you two, since it seemed like you were getting some opinions that probably a lot of people have out in the open.

 

I'm going to leave my vote where it lies for now.