Long Game 35: L35 Miserables

[little wilson]

I'm not referring to your comments, actually, Yitzi.

[Yitzi2]

44 minutes ago, little wilson said:

I'm not referring to your comments, actually, Yitzi.

Ah.  So someone else was blackmailing, and that was probably why you took my comments in the game the way you did.

[BrightnessRadiant]

Mmmm I honestly thought the neutral trolling was funny, but I still felt bad for the rest of the villagers heh...btw I had never played a game with neutrals before and after like the first cycle I worked readily with Joe and Crimsn. Crimsn actually told me that Yitzi was an elim and I thanked her and tried to use my prior spoken suspicions of him as the reason I was voting on him the cycle he was lynched. 

I even tried to push the Joe lynch through to repay the neutrals for that gift haha

I got a bit overwhelmed in this game with so much to analyze, but I tried not to give up on it and feel like I was one of the primary analysis givers for most of the time...in the end I died the cycle I told stick in pm that I suspected araris and pk as elims lol.

GG everyone and don't stress too much cuz we're all just playing for fun 

 

[Orlok Tsubodai]

2 hours ago, Yitzi2 said:

Ah.  So someone else was blackmailing, and that was probably why you took my comments in the game the way you did.

That's not what she's referring to, Yitzi. There wasn't other blackmailing during the game, other than Araris' "blackmail", exploiting a loophole I left open in the promise I made Seonid. Wilson's comments referred to the apparent support for blackmail that occurred in this game, in the thread itself. Randuir, Elenion, and Drake were vocally supportive of blackmailing neutral players, and no opposition to this policy was made evident by anyone not involved in the situation, which indicated an agreement with the blackmail by the general player base. There were players who spoke out against it, which is reassuring, but these players happened to be neutral (primarily due to Hael's balancing, rather than their views being formed by their roles).

[DrakeMarshall]

2 hours ago, OrlokTsubodai said:

Randuir, Elenion, and Drake were vocally supportive of blackmailing neutral players

Okay, so.

Would somebody point me where I said anything at all like this? I keep on hearing that "Drake was anti-neutral" from you all, but I truly don't recall saying anything of the sort.

On the first cycle I voted on Joe, but that was after some back-and-fourth PM in which he actually agreed to be voted on. He confirmed this in-thread. Other than that, I pretty much ignored the neutrals (to be fair, it could be said that I ignored everyone, because in the mid-game I was pretty inactive).

I don't think I ever intended to come across as "anti-neutral" and if that happened this was miscommunication.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Drake Marshall

[little wilson]

6 hours ago, Drake Marshall said:

Okay, so.

Would somebody point me where I said anything at all like this? I keep on hearing that "Drake was anti-neutral" from you all, but I truly don't recall saying anything of the sort.

On the first cycle I voted on Joe, but that was after some back-and-fourth PM in which he actually agreed to be voted on. He confirmed this in-thread. Other than that, I pretty much ignored the neutrals (to be fair, it could be said that I ignored everyone, because in the mid-game I was pretty inactive).

I don't think I ever intended to come across as "anti-neutral" and if that happened this was miscommunication.

Here. While this post was mostly relating to policy lynches, it also went into addressing blackmail. You conflated a legitimate "threat" towards people who lie about others' alignments with blackmail (your example wasn't blackmail at all) and tried to de-legitimize Orlok's post through it.

By focusing more on a players attitude, you remove the sense of responsibility that all players here need to have for the games. Which means that a blackmailer can just say "they shouldn't have taken it so harshly" after they've blackmailed someone and that person got upset.

So sure, you never specifically said "I support blackmailing the neutrals" but you did basically say "I support blackmail."

[DrakeMarshall]

1 hour ago, little wilson said:

Here. While this post was mostly relating to policy lynches, it also went into addressing blackmail. You conflated a legitimate "threat" towards people who lie about others' alignments with blackmail (your example wasn't blackmail at all) and tried to de-legitimize Orlok's post through it.

By focusing more on a players attitude, you remove the sense of responsibility that all players here need to have for the games. Which means that a blackmailer can just say "they shouldn't have taken it so harshly" after they've blackmailed someone and that person got upset.

So sure, you never specifically said "I support blackmailing the neutrals" but you did basically say "I support blackmail."

It bears mentioning that when I asked for a post that indicated that I was "anti-neutral" you referred me to one in which I was actually arguing against lynching a neutral. So I am still very curious how the message got out that I was anti-neutral.

 

And now you bring up a new subject. You disagree with what I said about blackmail earlier in the game.

 

Typically, when somebody accepts a different definition of a word than you do, especially when they openly acknowledge that they may be using a word differently than you would, the correct response is to interpret their statements according to the author's own meaning of the word.

I obviously define the word "blackmail" differently than you do. Specifically, I was taking the broadest definition possible, because I was trying to demonstrate that the term "blackmail" alone is not sufficient to distinguish what is and is not acceptable behavior.

You are perfectly free to disagree with how I define "blackmail." You may think that my definition is utterly erroneous. But if you are interested in understanding the intended meaning of my statements you will condescend to parse them according to my definitions. Even if you think that they are wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

 

It is apparent that my terms "acceptable blackmail" and "unacceptable blackmail" are analogous to your terms "legitimate threat" and "blackmail."

 

That being said, if we are going to discuss the proper definition of blackmail, how precisely do you distinguish "legitimate threat" and "blackmail" if you do not accept attitude as a legitimate criteria? If you hold a belief as strongly as you do, I believe it is proper to be able to articulate that belief.

By what objective criteria do you distinguish "legitimate threat" and "blackmail"?

In a purely linguistic sense, "threat" and "blackmail" have nearly identical definitions, and the key difference is the connotation. So if you want to have a proper discussion about this, you should explain how exactly you distinguish these two.

[little wilson]

Don't have a whole lot of time but what I will say is this: blackmail is proactive. By its very nature, it is telling a person exactly what to do and holding over their head some form of destruction for them if they do not do exactly as you say. If they disobey you in any way. The type of "threat" in that example is reactive. Were Rae to simply not say anything, and one lied about another's alignment, she'd still coinshot that person because what villager lies about another villager's alignment? That is a blatantly suspicious action and it gets a reactive response. Voicing the consequence prior to the action is merely giving a heads-up to the person - a heads up that shouldn't even be necessary. I mean, if you tell a lie like that and that lie is revealed, you should have a pretty good idea that you're either going to die to a vig-kill or be lynched. This is exactly what happened to Aman in a game a while ago when he lied about Orlok's alignment, saying that Orlok was evil when he wasn't actually. Aman was lynched next.

It's the difference between premeditated murder and a crime of passion, only on a very much smaller scale. Proactive vs reactive. Very different.

EDIT: One other thing I just thought of. Based on your definition of blackmail, a parent who tells their child "Eat your vegetables or you won't get dessert tonight" is blackmailing their child. Correct?

[DrakeMarshall]

4 hours ago, little wilson said:

EDIT: One other thing I just thought of. Based on your definition of blackmail, a parent who tells their child "Eat your vegetables or you won't get dessert tonight" is blackmailing their child. Correct?

That would be a poorly chosen connotation, but the literal definition would fit this situation, yes.

4 hours ago, little wilson said:

It's the difference between premeditated murder and a crime of passion, only on a very much smaller scale. Proactive vs reactive. Very different.

That is an effective distinction. Thank you for explaining your position.

[Yitzi2]

19 hours ago, little wilson said:

Don't have a whole lot of time but what I will say is this: blackmail is proactive. By its very nature, it is telling a person exactly what to do and holding over their head some form of destruction for them if they do not do exactly as you say. If they disobey you in any way. The type of "threat" in that example is reactive. Were Rae to simply not say anything, and one lied about another's alignment, she'd still coinshot that person because what villager lies about another villager's alignment? That is a blatantly suspicious action and it gets a reactive response. Voicing the consequence prior to the action is merely giving a heads-up to the person - a heads up that shouldn't even be necessary. I mean, if you tell a lie like that and that lie is revealed, you should have a pretty good idea that you're either going to die to a vig-kill or be lynched. This is exactly what happened to Aman in a game a while ago when he lied about Orlok's alignment, saying that Orlok was evil when he wasn't actually. Aman was lynched next.

What about in a case where it isn't so clear; for instance, if the neutrals were to throw in fully with one side, the other side might decide to respond by taking them out, but also might not.  So in that case, would saying "if you throw in fully with the other side, we'll lynch/kill you" be an issue, if it doesn't go so far as "help only us, or else"?

[little wilson]

In most cases of the reactive type, the "threat" is usually one that the person being "threatened" basically already knows or can hazard a very good guess about. I mentioned that exact scenario during the game. Neutrals have a fine line to walk between not helping the elims too much and not helping the village too much because if they do either and the other side finds out, they'll probably die. A villager saying "if you help the elims more than the village, we'll kill you" isn't blackmailing the neutral. They're reiterating a pretty obvious consequence that anyone half-intelligent would already know about.

[Steeldancer]

Ok can someone explain to me how the neutrals were broken in this game? I'm kind of lost 

[Orlok Tsubodai]

1 minute ago, Flash said:

Ok can someone explain to me how the neutrals were broken in this game? I'm kind of lost 

I was able to claim D1, without fear of being killed, as there was no one with a vested interest in my death. This allowed me to achieve my win condition of survival to the end of the game with very little risk. It also allowed Cosette and Eponine to find me, with no difficulty, as opposed to it taking Cosette an extended time to find me, and Eponine potentially never doing so, as would be the case if I couldn't claim. It also meant that I made contact with the Thief, and that Wilson would claim to me. Wilson claiming as Javert allowed me to verify Crimsn's claim, as they both corroborated Valjean (Joe)'s identity (Valjean starts the game knowing Cosette, and Javert starts the game knowing Valjean). By 28 hours into the game, Crimsn, El, Joe and I were most of the way to our win conditions, and we had a group PM with all six neutrals, so could act as a bloc, rather than being vulnerable as independent players.

[Steeldancer]

Just now, OrlokTsubodai said:

I was able to claim D1, without fear of being killed, as there was no one with a vested interest in my death. This allowed me to achieve my win condition of survival to the end of the game with very little risk. It also allowed Cosette and Eponine to find me, with no difficulty, as opposed to it taking Cosette an extended time to find me, and Eponine potentially never doing so, as would be the case if I couldn't claim. It also meant that I made contact with the Thief, and that Wilson would claim to me. Wilson claiming as Javert allowed me to verify Crimsn's claim, as they both corroborated Valjean (Joe)'s identity (Valjean starts the game knowing Cosette, and Javert starts the game knowing Valjean). By 28 hours into the game, Crimsn, El, Joe and I were most of the way to our win conditions, and we had a group PM with all six neutrals, so could act as a bloc, rather than being vulnerable as independent players.

And that ease of win condition fulfillment was an example of it being broken? Ok. 

Just never seen a broken game before. Thanks for the explanation. I'll probably take that into account for planning my own game.... 

[Orlok Tsubodai]

8 minutes ago, Flash said:

And that ease of win condition fulfillment was an example of it being broken? Ok. 

Just never seen a broken game before. Thanks for the explanation. I'll probably take that into account for planning my own game.... 

I had almost nothing to do in the game after D1, and after N1 had arranged for Eponine to become my lover, too. The first 72 hours, and first 28 hours particularly, were a great deal of fun, but I couldn't do anything other than essentially spectate and try to lynch Joe every so often, for the rest of the game, which wasn't terribly fun.

[Elbereth]

And I had literally nothing to do at all.  Orlok did literally everything of importance while I was asleep. 

The reason that's broken, though, is because the point of a game is that players are invested in it. We still were, because we're going to be regardless, but most players won't be invested once they've won. They just go inactive - like I mostly did - because there's no reason them to play, at all. And that's a broken mechanic. 

[Ecthelion III]

I had absolutely no idea what was going on the last two cycles

[little wilson]

It's been almost a month since anyone posted in here, so I think it's safe to close it up now. Thank you to everyone who played. I thought this was a really fun game, despite it being a little broken for the neutrals. I also think many of us learned a few lessons about neutrals - not only in game play but also in game building - and that's always a plus.

A very big thank you to Hael for running this. I know you'd expected it to break at some point, but other than the neutrals stuff (which wasn't too bad), I think it actually went really well in that regard. So that's good! It was a great idea and made for a great game, though a little low on the parodies (sorry about that....).

Congratulations to the eliminator team on their win! You all did excellent in bringing the barricade down. Long live the king.

-

As always, if anyone would like to try their hand at running a game, just get a hold of Orlok, Seonid, Alvron, or myself. Not only will we get you added to the list (and the GM PM group), but we'll be more than willing to help out in any way we can. 

You can also post game ideas, ask questions, and get feedback from everyone over in our Art of Game Creation thread too. With all the games that we've run so far, we have plenty of experienced GMs that can help you refine any game you're working on.

Thanks again to everyone who played, and we look forward to killing seeing you in future games!