• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Kasimir last won the day on October 23

Kasimir had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,597 Most Ancient

About Kasimir

  • Rank
    메뚜기 游侠

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

11,567 profile views
  1. Mm. I don't like intervening in these debates outside a philosophy classroom for many reasons that I've mentioned previously in the Discord and various docs That being said, one thing I'd point out that tends to be (but is not always so) at stake in free will debates is moral responsibility. That is to say, we don't seem to think that people could be morally responsible for their actions if they lack free will. (This likely stems from the same intuition as "if I take your money from you and donate it to charity on your behalf, you certainly shouldn't be morally credited with donating to charity.") I'll note that the classical argument we give students in Philosophy #101 is actually a dilemma argument: that is to say, whether the world is deterministic or truly random, we lack free will. Contextualised within such a maneuver, the true randomness v. effective randomness distinction in effect does become toothless - but it becomes toothless because it can't salvage free will! Either way, the disturbing problem with effective randomness is just that it's not clear that free will resulting from effective randomness is any kind of thing that can result in moral responsibility. And if it can't, then the question is: sure, we've salvaged a model of free will, but at what cost? Have we simply thrown the baby out for the sake of the bathwater? One final note is that the argument from neurology is not taken to be especially convincing at the entry level because it relies on certain problematic premises. Tim Lewens' The Meaning of Science is a great look into the limitations of the argument, though I believe Lisa Bortolotti has also written on the matter in her introductory textbook to the philosophy of science. (Of course, once we get into the actual cutting edge research, that's a different story.) Anyway, I'm not going to further engage with this topic for my own sake No one @ me please. Thanks!
  2. Oooh! What is your favourite nib size, then?
  3. Actually, not really. If Striker flipped Good, I would have read you as attempting to bluff me off the Striker vote, so I'd have been suspicious - just not suspicious/paranoid enough to flip the table and to try to get voted in >>;; The issue/context I think is that Striker was unanimously (at least among those I talked to) considered Village, so any resistance there wouldn't have seemed quite right to me. Of course, you could try to press me on the issue by reminding me that I had questioned the Rath lynch too, which I think might have made me hesitate, but ultimately I'm not sure how much ground I would have given there, since Striker had a better voting pattern than Rath did. I think for me, on that penultimate cycle, the real question was me wasn't if you were evil - your voting pattern and what Fifth was doing stood out so much to me it'd have taken a lot more to shift me to someone else. The real question in my mind was what you were trying to do by bringing the Striker thing up, and what Fifth was trying to do by asking us to talk about the semi-actives (I didn't communicate this well either, but my guess was either an attempt to smuggle a semi-active Eliminator into the lynch, or to force a hurried ill-considered "oh well we talked about the semi-actives and focused on them but sorry we gotta vote actives anyway so let's just throw hasty votes" situation.) Anyway, thanks for GMing El, and I definitely hope to see this format return, as it's more Avalon than my Avalon game I myself have some ideas for this, if time permits in the future.
  4. quest

    Cheers, Chief, all the best with the move! Looking to getting a few other votes/perspectives in this game, meanwhile! But okay: to clarify - when I say visit the Thief, I don't mean visit and leave, I mean let's try to find out what the heck they were doing and so on
  5. Good game to the Eliminators and Village Looks like inactivity was the bane (foe-hammer?) of both sides, though it's never quite that easy to balance for it beyond certain measures. Great write-up, El - I loved the anti-climatic ending, and Rath, the first Villager on the Fellowship, grabbing the Ring and saving everyone is hilariously brilliant With the Corrupted arriving late to the scene. I probably have had some strategic thoughts here and there/comments, but I think I've inflicted them enough on El and the spec doc by now Special thanks goes to @Fifth Scholar - I had rethought my position on PMs but he definitely persuaded me during Elan's MR to make better use of them, and I think I saw some of it in action across both iterations of El's MR, in terms of gaining trusts, and collecting information and just data for me to analyse and work out my suspicions. I do think the one-on-on format of the PMs really helped me convince other Villagers of my suspicions, though not always. (As I said, Bard was right - I was being paranoid ) I think what interested me was how little analysis it took to convince Bard of Wonko: I literally just shot him a one-line question asking him for his thoughts of Wonko's and Coda's vote on Fifth during Aman's election. It probably helped Bard was already suspicious of Coda, and that it's Bard I was talking to, but also, just - I find it an interesting reminder that sometimes you don't need to write long arguments to convince people. Asking an Armour Piercing Question or finding a Silver Bullet can work too
  6. [OOC: Well. Striker. So, out with it. Confirmed Villagers can be wrong. This is true. I may be wrong. But nevertheless, I will finally stop being coy, and hinting, and leaving you with my suspicions. My suspicions are not bedrock. I can make mistakes. Treat them with caution. Find the flaws in my arguments. If you cannot find them, then reason accordingly. I think the Eliminator team includes Fifth and Wonko. I am less certain about Bard and Striker, but this would be my guess. Striker is either a Villager who is doubling down, or an Eliminator who refuses to turn on a teammate. Bard is either an excessively overparanoid Villager, or an Eliminator. If Striker is not an Eliminator, then suspicion should turn to Coda. Avoid voting them unless you must. I have taken a chance on Burnt, but I acknowledge she would have behaved the same either Village or Eliminator. I am more confident of Aragorn and Peji, as they sealed a vote on Ada, against Fifth, my strongest suspect. Wonko and Coda had tied the vote 2-2 last cycle - we know Ada is a confirmed Villager, and we don't know about Fifth. Such a movement should be suspicious. Everyone was asking, "Where is the Eliminator action? Oh, they must be inactive." Why postulate that? The answer is right there: they tried to get Fifth voted. They failed because of Aragorn and Peji. As such, I have a modicum of trust in them. My strongest suspicion is Fifth. Why do I suspect Fifth? A few reasons. Then there's the Wonko issue: For Striker: The one place my theories don't account for: why did Fifth and Wonko vote me? I am not certain. I admit, this could be the flaw in my argumentation. But it could be the IKYK, or it could be just to silence me and dominate the discussion and voting, if I am right about the composition of the Eliminator team. (Bard's 30% odds at #2 doesn't work out - the obvious answer is to vote for someone who isn't any of the above-mentioned, including Striker. And as I'm Village, the Village now just has to get it right one more time. One person out of the entire game pool who isn't compromised. Please, try to manage that And as I have said, I may be wrong. I played a little coy with my suspicions. But I voiced them more explicitly to Bard and to Burnt, and later to Peji as well. ] Aranmir packed the last of his belongings and prepared for a long journey. He hardened his heart against the song of the Ring. Isildur had fallen. Centuries and centuries later, Aranmir would not fail. There was a cloth-wrapped bundle, slightly longer than his arm, resting on the bed. He hauled it up, the cloth slipping free as he did so. He looked at it for a very long time. It was time to go to war.
  7. Interesting, since Bard chose the vote. He was the literal first player to vote on Striker I just happened to agree with him for separate reasons and to support him. But thank you for your response - you have confirmed my suspicions of the Eliminator team That's because I haven't explained myself and I don't intend to, as I'm not campaigning for Striker to be voted in by everyone. I haven't campaigned since Day 1. I don't intend to spell out my reasoning as I want more discussion, and more players to explain where they stand. Doesn't seem like I'm going to get it at this stage, though. Unfortunate.
  8. Dude, I was joking - I said and that my actual vote was based off Striker's voting patterns, and the fact it would be informational It's obvious Villagers can be mistaken, or I'd have gone for the Ada lynch on Day One. I know intimately well better than to make that inference! Fair enough (Oh sorry, another ! I blame El, I'm easily-influenced >>;; ) I used to be a lot more gung-ho on gut, but right now /shrugs I'm hardly going to fight a vote on myself as I don't find myself very helpful to the Village - that being said, I am, for obvious reasons, not going to shift my vote off Striker just yet
  9. Storm it >> Sorry, I think I got you mixed up with Bard Bard is much, much more willing to vote you and Striker than me Honestly, I think his paranoia is kinda cute and I wonder if that's what it's like, being the Dread Pirate Wilson, the Cursor of Doom, the Herald of Chocolate and Deliciousness, but alas I am somewhat willing to vote Peji now, though I have been convinced by the fact Ada clearly thinks that Striker is the right choice Waits for El to twitch Or mostly because Striker has voted straight Village for three cycles in a row. I'm not entirely comfortable with him - there are in fact some things that make me uneasy about him - but I'm willing to take the chance, as I deem it an informative lynch, we do still have room for error, and if he flips Evil, I'll have my suspicions on the Eliminator team make-up moderately confirmed
  10. Pdufxvh nrqvwdwlhuw vrzrko lq ghu Zlvvhqvfkdiw dov dxfk lp öiihqwolfkhq Glvnxuv hlq „hlqglphqvlrqdohv“ xqg „srvlwlyhv'“ ecz. 友情 的溪 水慢 慢流 窝武 „srvlwlylvwlvfkhv“ Ghqnhq. Lqvehvrqghuh glh Zlvvhqvfkdiw ioüfkwhwh vlfk dxv Ixufkw yru Zhuwxuwhlohq rghu srolwlvfkhu Hlqplvfkxqj lq glh Hpslulh xqg lq txdqwlwdwlyhv Ghqnhq. Juxqgväwcolfkh, txdolwdwlyh Uhiohalrq ghu jhvhoovfkdiwolfkhq Sureohph xqg Dxijdehqvwhooxqjhq iäqghq lq glhvhu whfkqrnudwlvfkhq Khuuvfkdiwvzlvvhqvfkdiw qlfkw vwdww. 歲月 的溪 水慢 慢流 科斯 Vwdww glh Xqjohlfkkhlw lp Ndslwdolvpxv xqg glh qxnohduh Ehgurkxqj cx klqwhuiudjhq xqg cx nulwlvlhuhq, züughq glhvh Sureohph qxu yhuzdowhw xqg vrplw lpphu qhx uhsurgxclhuw. 多年 以後 又再 相逢 吧勺
  11. Whoops, sorry I was just worried you read it as "These are the people who said they'd vote Wonko", Aman...etctera. Not really - I'm saying that this calculation is too complex for me to figure out in my current state. It's one of those things that have to be mooted to the thread for everyone to talk about because trust is also situational - e.g. I might not be willing to back you, as compared to myself, but if it's a choice between you and Wonko, nope, *slams table* TAKE MY STORMING VOTE, no questions asked (Note: This is an example, as there are some reasons I can think of that Wonko would be interesting as a candidate, but at least right now, I'm more inclined to getting you lynched, or myself lynched.) Basically, I don't think it can be accurately done a priori. We just have to see what the response is. So I really don't know what the final numbers would look like, but it's enough to me to flag that these three seem to have some measure of trust from everyone - let's talk about them, and also the fact we seem to have two rather divided groups! I also dropped into the thread early as I'd rather people talk or have time to. We don't need last-minute hasty discussion prior to a lynch!
  12. I mean, if you want to get into absolute numbers... So yes, you're right that Wonko is a bit weak as a compromise candidate out of the pool of three, but I flagged him anyway as the next in line. The other issue is that this doesn't take into account strength of trusts: for instance, Wonko is more willing to vote for you and himself, given the choice, than me. You are not as high as Wonko or me on Fifth's list. And so on. So I think we can't really count on absolute vote-strength here. I don't really find the absolute numbers as informative
  13. H'okay. So I'm gonna do something I haven't done in a very, very long time, since the Desolation of Elantris and info-dump Basically, I've been sitting on this issue for a bit, but I think it's beyond me, and I also think that getting the thread to weigh in on this would be very helpful. There are two distinct clusters of 'trust' (IDK, trust? Least suspicion?) beginning to form up. I PMed a number of people since the beginning of this game, and especially since last cycle. I usually ask people to identify who they would vote for - in a particular cycle - if they had to pick the entire remaining Fellowship on the spot. Occasionally I ask about their favourite breakfast and other stuff, which is why I now know that @Burnt Spaghetti has an excellent apple-cinnamon turnover recipe, and that @Straw would rather receive $0.01 per step than $0.75 per jump (For the record, Burnt would take $0.01 per step as well.) Cluster One: I've grouped Cluster One together because our lists are more or less compatible: we agree on Bard and Wonko, with weaker agreement on Striker and myself. I put Peji last cycle as I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and distrusted everyone else - I also did not consider myself electable due to the amount of doubt floating around, but am fine with swapping myself back in for obvious reasons Moreover, since only three of this list needs to be Villagers, I feel that the two on which we disagree are actually negotiable. So this appears to me to be one distinct voting cluster. I have grouped @Pejidot with this cluster as she agrees in general on Bard, and has a weaker potential agreement on me (though she also says I've RPed a lot and so she'd need to read through that as well.) While she did not identify herself in her picks, she noted it was also because she didn't feel it was indicative, as everyone would select themselves. Cluster Two: This cluster is distinctive because they trust Fifth - the other cluster does not. They are also more positive (relatively) in their reads of me, Burnt, and Striker than the other cluster. This cluster also trusts Wonko less than the other clusters. I share this information for two reasons. First, because I find it unlikely that both clusters are made up entirely of Villagers, but if we somehow are, then we should be talking to each other. Discussion is how we refine our suspicions. Already, Fifth's posts mean that I have to read through them later on and potentially revise my judgements of him, or in philosopher-speak, update my priors Second, because I'm cynical, I think at least one of these clusters has been compromised by Eliminators, but really, probably both are. In which case, non-communication will allow Eliminators to play both sides and exploit our distrust against each other. So: I think that judging from these, at least, though people may certainly change their views, strong consensus candidates would be Striker, Wonko, and myself. At this point, I am willing to back Striker, though I would also welcome a lynch of myself as I feel I am not adequately helpful to the Village and am more confused than anything The next worry is that if we are in fact infiltrated, then there might be something fishy about our compromise candidates. That being said, if all three of us aren't Eliminators, we'll do just fine I can confirm that it can't be the case that we are all Eliminators but I am also aware that saying it's not true because I'm not an Eliminator is not especially rhetorically persuasive So people. Thoughts, opinions? Edited to highlight the overlaps in clusters better. Clusters do not represent strength of suspicions/trust.
  14. See, it's just that I disagree that this sets a precedent - either way, when we know what Straw's real alignment is at the end of the game, there will be a precedent. To be sure, people will be a bit less encouraged to pull a Straw because they'll say "oh, he didn't get away with it," but it doesn't stop a player from doing that and going, "Well, look at MR38 - Straw did this and he was a Villager/Eliminator," so who's to say someone isn't trying that? I think the analogy to me would be like how everyone in SE was very negative on WGGs for a while, because Cessie's attempt at one had failed so spectacularly. But it never stops people from wondering, or really trying one - it's still a precedent anyway, whether it's rewarded or not. With your new phrasing, I generally agree - I wouldn't consider his actions a reason to vote Straw, for instance, but had more people than you taken the bait, I might have then really doubled down on Straw just because I'd be seeing where everyone is falling into place on Straw. But that would be an informational vote rather than because Straw's actions lead me to think well of him - and really, in any case, as I told Wonko last cycle (or was it two cycles ago?), I'd really rather vote for stronger Villager candidates than ones I'm meh about. I didn't swap from Straw last cycle as El mentioned she was counting Aragorn's vote (despite the lack of red), and Ada was winning by a landslide so my voting last minute for Ada really wouldn't have changed anything at all That being said, I had always intended to vote with my trusts for that cycle at least. I would just add the caveat that early Jain really was this bad, until he got killed repeatedly. He was considered unanalysable precisely because he was so random, and I believe it was in part a strategy to be difficult to analyse except he kept getting Villager all the time. I think random players or players with a reputation for randomness are in fact adopting the same strategy, just to a less infuriating degree. That being said, we are agreed that while we shouldn't penalise such players, we certainly don't have to reward them! The issue I think is that by that light, I should be just as suspicious! I diverted what ended up being a building lynch cluster between Bard and Ada! And we now know Ada is a Villager, so I've been implicated in shifting a lynch off a Villager. It should look even worse for me if Bard turns out to be Village after all (I'm still unsure about him ) as I arguably turned a Village-Village lynch to an Eliminator lynch (and Eru help me if Burnt is a Villager as well because this would mean I ignored every single Village option and hit on the Eliminator! Ouch!) Anyway, bold of you to assume I'm voting him because he's a trust I definitely don't trust him that much, and he's probably the weakest of my top tiers at the moment. I am still rather suspicious of you for that single-minded focus on Burnt, but can be persuaded otherwise, and I think some of your late posts will require me to analyse and recalibrate again. Don't forget, I have over twenty-four hours to change my vote