Jump to content

Quick Fix 59: Bachelor--Roshar edition!


Lotus

Recommended Posts

Would like @Orlok Tsubodai, @Illwei, @Stricker, @JNV, @Mailliw73, and @StrikerEZ's takes on this topic before I weigh in.

Specifically:

49 minutes ago, Archer said:

You know what’s infuriating when you’re an elim? Randomness. Or at least, having a poor idea of how much danger you’re actually in. I suggest that everyone explicitly keep their suspicions broad and their trust lists private today so the elims can’t rely on a village-led mix to get them through to the next round.

For accountability’s sake, I expect everyone to have some reason to share tomorrow to back up their vote, but if you’re split between two or three equally suspicious options, why not list them all and tell the thread you’ll flip a coin to decide where you land? If everyone applies legitimate pressure to a number of suspects, the overlap should catch the elims somewhere and force action on their part.

Thoughts?

Also, everyone should go cast a placeholder vote now on a truly random person, in case you forget to vote later. I’ll be placing mine on either Kas, Mat, or TUA.

and

11 minutes ago, Ashbringer said:

Hmm... maybe an idea is for everyone to vote on two people in thread, and secretly pick one of the two to vote for real? 

TY in advance friendos <3

 

Also, TUA...

13 minutes ago, The Unknown Aon said:

Placing a retaliation vote on Archer. Do kind of agree with what he said though.

Did I miss Archer saying he was voting for you? I see he put you in a 3 person pool with Kas and Mat, but that doesn't guarantee he's voting for you anyway. Why do you feel the need to retaliate?

 

ED1T:

Ninja'd by illwei answering my question ahead of time. Thanks!

Edited by Amanuensis
Added TY clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what's wrong about it being a vanilla game tbh. Like "If we say who we're voting on then it is just a regular game" doesn't make sense to me because 1) I think voting or intent being trackable throughout isn't a bad thing at all and 2) its not going to change the fact that the mechanic exists

Not knowing where intents are leads to people who are not going to feel any sort of pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ashbringer said:

You're welcome!

... I think.

Heh. I was thanking the people I @'d to weigh in on your's and Archer's proposals. Sorry for the confusion :P Though I am grateful for your existence all the same!

Edited by Amanuensis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ashbringer said:

Hmm... maybe an idea is for everyone to vote on two people in thread, and secretly pick one of the two to vote for real? 

I don't have a problem with this idea tbh

To a certain extent. At exlo let's not (let's just not get to exlo :D) but D1? Sure. Seems like a happy medium. Players that are paying attention to reads could probably guess between the two which is being voted on, and I like the mindgame that provides for the elims, especially early on.

> I also think it's 3:12, but I wouldn't be completely shocked with 4:11. I was elim in the QF that had similar rules to this (though I can't recall if it was identical) and we had far too large of a team but I doubt that'd be repeated. I don't think we should cite anything from that game in relation to what this one might be, since it was like 15 months ago and had a skewed percentage of elims.

Agree with there being no problem with this being a vanilla game. With the upcoming LG that might be nice xD Info is good.

  • Leaning village on Illwei for the above take
  • Leaning village on Archer because I instinctively disagree with his opening point- that happens more often when he's village. When he's elim, I agree with him more. Usually.
  • I want to lean elim on Exp for this because the Archer vote implication seems like a stretch to me, however, I think if Exp wanted an excuse to easy vote Archer he would have picked something else, so more leaning village.
19 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

Would like @Orlok Tsubodai, @Illwei, @Stricker, @JNV, @Mailliw73, and @StrikerEZ's takes on this topic before I weigh in.

Ah yes, Stricker and Striker.

Poke voting Maill, or maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2022 at 2:30 PM, Lotus said:

Ghost-blood spies (vanilla Elim):

2 hours ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

Salana walked forward and said brightly, "hello bright lord Adolin! I am Salana! pleasure to meet you!"

1 hour ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

I don't get it. what?

1 hour ago, Thaidakar the Ghostblood said:

OH. lol I get it now. thanks Devo.

Hey Thaidakar. I'm surprised you haven't voted yet. Too busy leading your faction?

ED1T:

(1) DevotaryAshbringer,
(2 or 3) ArcherKasimirThe Unknown AonExperience
(1) MailliwMatrim,
(1) ThaidakarAmanuensis

Edited by Amanuensis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Aracha was young, she was told that if she was bright enough and clever enough and pretty enough she’d be able to marry into a good family without debts as deep as chasms. When Aracha was young, she had thought her mother to be the most beautiful woman to ever grace Roshar, loving her with a distant sort of admiration. When Aracha was young, her father listed the unmarried and unpromised noblemen, some her age, most older. Far older. When Aracha was young, she kissed a girl in a stormshelter while her parents mingled with the men they wanted her to marry. When Aracha was young, her mother told her that even if the family wasn’t on the verge of begging for coin, she wouldn’t be able to marry a woman. Dalliances, perhaps, but she would marry a man, as is proper and befitting of a lighteyes, and she would just have to hope that her husband would tolerate her unfaithful behavior.

When Aracha was less young, she left home to further her education. Her family would survive in her absence, possibly even thrive without the extra mouth to feed, and her wardship under a somewhat reputable scholar would not require funds. Everything would be… well, not fine, but tolerable. Everything would be just fine. And it was. She learned, devoted herself to the Calling of logic, joined her mentor’s devotary, and even started writing some essays.

Then she received a letter from her mother. Her father had fallen ill. Deathly ill. Treatment was incredibly expensive, and the moneymaker of the family had just been taken out. The debt hadn’t gotten any smaller in her absence, and the moneylenders knew their faces well enough to turn them away without listening. There was no other way.

She would have to rob Adolin Kholin.

Well, hopefully not so literally, but at the very least rob him of a spouse who would be able to love him back. Actually, taking his wealth was the worst-case scenario. Re-enacting her childhood nightmares was… unpleasant, but at least he wasn’t absolutely hideous. She could pretend to want him. Probably.

 

I think people should definitely just say what they are voting and then if theres a mismatch in the vote count next cycle we vote the liars. I see no reason why randomness helps the village at all and also Archer's point about "oh elims dont like randomness so ignroance will help on the vote front" but only for c1 seems weird cause we're probably just wrong anyway and also them losing a C1 elim doesnt really seem like a huge lsos cause we'll be finding conenctiosn that arent there msot of the time also lying about your vote is inherently suspiciosu and theres nothing wrong with it being a vanilla game vvanilla games are great 

Ashbringer's proposal doesnt seem much better honestly why would we do that what is the benefit to noth aving a cohesive vote why would that help at all. If anything it just helps elims find ways to mislead and say "no I said I would vote for one of these people" and giving excuses. I just think we should all be honest but with how things seem to be going strategy wise I dont think everyone will agree 

I dont really like Archer's strategy and I dont understand why offering a spread helps with accountability at all it just gives you a chance to excuse yourself later and get out of actually saying what you think so Im voting Archer but if you explain your strategy better maybe I could see merit possibly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Illwei said:

Matrim

A village read for simply saying that votes shouldn't be private? what kinda game is this :P.

A village read for making a point contrary to the way the thread was leaning and sticking to it :P.

Edited by Matrim's Dice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vanala could not stand the other women. She sat there, writing in her notebook, while they all talked amongst themselves. They all had such strange ideas for how they should best go about finding these rumored murderers amongst them. At least the men seemed to be more reasonable about. Even if one of them insisted he was a cup. 

And don't get her started on the strange furry little axehound.

She glanced back at her notes. She had been trying to keep track of what people were saying, even if some of it completely baffled her. It was important for her to know what other people were thinking and planning and what they were going to do if she was going to win this. She needed this engagement.

Quote

Vanala's notes on the Alethi Women (and men, and axehound) seeking the heart of Adolin Kholin
Shattered Plains, Alethkar, circa 1174

Day One

  • Keredin: One of the men of our little group of wannabe spouses. Seems far too interested in swords for my taste, but Adolin would love him for that. Be wary of that fact. As for his thoughts on the murderers, if they do exist, I agree with him that Nid's random strategy of randomly searching for the murderes does not make sense. And if we did do that, why would it only be effective the first day? I like Keredin's thoughts, however, he has not said much else since, so I need to be wary of him still.
  • Lucy the axehound: They seemed to get very aggressive with Nid when they suggested their strategy, but then backed off for no apparent reason. Does the axehound know more than we do? I'll have to keep an eye on that creature. 
  • Floradel: Responded to Nid's suggestion of being a possibility for being searched very strangely. They seemed skittish, and retaliated quickly, saying they would also search them. Perhaps this is a wannabe murderer being put off by pressure before they have even done anything? Strange that they also agreed with Nid's plan, despite Nid's accusations of them. Should investigate further.
  • Kelath: She has not shown her face much this day, but she has made some astute observations. Especially in regards to Nid and his history. I don't have many other thoughts about her, so perhaps she is not a murderer.
  • Archa: A woman with common sense in this group. I greatly agree with her thoughts on Nid, and would most likely look along with them at Nid for further inquiries about the murderers in the future. I would not think that someone who was about to commit murders would so whole-heartedly disagree with someone like Nid publicly.
  • Nid: I have appreciated her later points, but I cannot, nay, shall not get over her first few comments. Keeping things a secret and hiding what we believe and who we are going to search in the event of a murder is not the way to go. It only helps further the murderers' own goals of keeping themselves a secret. Having as much accountability in the thread as possible is the best course of action. And I feel like Nid's growing amenability is the sign of a murderer realizing they have made a mistake. 
  • Zara: While she has spent most of today sleeping so far, I did like what she said once she considered us worthy of waking up for. As much as I hate to admit it. She is right that having accountability for all of our actions is how we are going to find these murderers. If anyone can say something one day and then do something else the next day, then there is nothing stopping the murderers from doing whatever they want whenever they want.
  • Tailia: I have found most of what they have said fairly agreeable. I appreciate that they are holding themselves accountable for their own actions. Do not understand why they have been defending Nid's ideas, however. So I am fairly confused by this woman. I would still prefer to investigate Nid further before investigating Tailia.
  • Salana: She has introduced herself to Adolin, not even to us fellow suitors, and was confused by a joke of Nid's. Poor woman. I cannot tell if she is playing her own confusion up or is genuinely confused. I do wish she would interact with us more.
  • Awoman: This man has mostly been making jokes with the women and men here in the suite. But when he has not been doing that, I have agreed with him. He seems perfectly amenable to me. I am amused by the fact that he called me by the wrong name earlier, but I have not yet gotten an explanation for how it happened.
  • Albert: This supposed cup has made some good points about how many murderers we might be dealing with. They are also making several points about the nature of our votes in this game for Adolin's love being secret that I agree with strongly. It is odd that they are accusing an axehound of being a murderer, but, well, I do find the axehound suspicious as well. 

Mailia, Bortlington, and the mysterious stranger known as Locke have not shown their faces in the suite yet. Perhaps one of them is a murderer? But it does not serve us today to look at them too closely. Better to focus on people who have been seen and have spoken.

Vanala closed her notebook. She was satisfied with her notes for the day. She had attended to some personal manners at the start of the day, but she was hopeful that she could be more focused on the trials for Adolin's heart from here on out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, got busy this afternoon and forgot the game was started so hello there. 

My initial gut reaction to Archer’s post was that it felt elimmy, but that’s eased up as I kept reading. 

Here’s my hot take, but I think it’s totally fine to not share your vote in the thread. Am I being pushed this way subconsciously because I don’t like broad decisions about what villagers have to or have to not do? Maybe, idk, but I think there is merit to voting secretly in contrary to your public vote or not mentioning who you are going to vote for in the thread. Especially to reaction test or push on someone a bit more even while actually voting for a higher suspect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ashbringer said:

I think what we want to avoid is when we go around C2 asking people why they voted for the Villager and get almost all responses of "it was just a random vote".

Yes. But the point is you're voting among three suspicions. Or two, I'm fine with that. 

Let me sketch out the rationale better. 

Step 1. Everyone puts a placeholder vote on a truly random individual. Odds are this won't matter because the active votes will outweigh the passive ones which are wasted on people there's no momentum built to kill. But this changes the default situation from if I stay quiet, I'll probably survive to if I stay quiet, there's a chance there's going to be a vote on me anyway. Maybe more. The certainty of a large train is required to safeguard yourself. 

Step 2. People cast broad nets of suspicion. Striker's post is a decent example of this actually. We're all smart enough to see village tells, and if you can't, you might be clouded by the elim mindset and will be interrogated about it tomorrow. So we focus on our suspects so that no one feels fully certain they'll survive the Day. 

Step 3. We vote for one of our top suspects. 

Step 4. ...somewhat randomly. It's an allegedly random choice from our pool. Which again reduces the certainty that you can argue your way out of a vote. Unless you can fully persuade someone, the coin might make them fall back on you. The process of creating a suspect list should reduce the amount of votes that land on villagers, but even if they do, it's not an unexpected outcome for C1. It's worth it for the pressure this creates. 

The whole idea is that everyone is under an equal amount of legitimate pressure and the only effective way of saving yourself is by voting in self-preservation. Villagers don't care about that, but the elims will. 

3 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

@Stricker

Glad I'm not the only one who does that sometimes :D. 

3 hours ago, Illwei said:

I don't see what's wrong about it being a vanilla game tbh. Like "If we say who we're voting on then it is just a regular game" doesn't make sense to me because 1) I think voting or intent being trackable throughout isn't a bad thing at all and 2) its not going to change the fact that the mechanic exists

Not knowing where intents are leads to people who are not going to feel any sort of pressure.

but... but... the affordances... :(

I'm fine playing it more straight tomorrow, with the understanding that exlo is gonna suck because the hammer can be done in secret. 

3 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

With the upcoming LG that might be nice 

that reminds me, I was going to vote Experience today

this game should finish before the LG begins, fortunately. 

2 hours ago, JNV said:

She would have to rob Adolin Kholin... Well, hopefully not so literally, but at the very least rob him of a spouse who would be able to love him back. 

 

1. also Archer's point about "oh elims dont like randomness so ignroance will help on the vote front" but only for c1 seems weird cause we're probably just wrong anyway and

2. also them losing a C1 elim doesnt really seem like a huge lsos

3. also lying about your vote is inherently suspiciosu

4. and theres nothing wrong with it being a vanilla game vvanilla games are great 

5. and say "no I said I would vote for one of these people" and giving excuses.

6. it just gives you a chance to excuse yourself later and get out of actually saying what you think 

When your fun little Bachelor story takes a hard turn into Warbreaker :blink:

(1) Being wrong in an unexpected way is better than being wrong in a predictable way. This is a game of chicken, we win by making the elims flinch. My strategy expands our ability to poke. (2) I've always seen C1 as a freebie mix, although that sometimes doesn't work out in practice. Anyway, your win probably drops off fairly significantly if an unplanned C1 elim teammate death happens. It's much worse to go from 2 to 1, but the first death bumps exlo back from Cycle Five (C1 3:12, C2 3:10, C3 3:8, C4 3:6, C5 3:4) to Cycle Six (C1 3:12, C2 2:11, C3 2:9, C4 2:7, C5 2:5, C6 2:3). Okay, now that I've worked it out, that's not actually that bad, but you have to remember you've got less thread control and inactivity clears (players who couldn't have submitted the NK being removed from the suspect list) are a pain for the elims. In practice, I think two elims are likely to run into trouble over that long a stretch. And most elim teams act accordingly. 

(3) Lying about your vote is inherently suspicious. While it's possible that a low activity elim might use my intial suggestion that people RNG their placeholder votes as an excuse, most people won't be able to because they're visibly engaged. So my proposal asks them to discuss several suspicions and advertise that they'll choose from them. (5) If someone's obviously shoehorning one into their list, feel free to call it out. But at least they'll have to do that and go on the record as considering them as an option. True RNG would be a problem, but this modified version has less opportunities for votes with no groundwork. (6) People will have to say what they're thinking to justify their suspect pool. There's multiple correct answers to who is an elim, so limiting yourself to a single vote is actually less effective. :P. 

(4) I'm trying to decide if this is just a difference opinion thing or not. Saying "so Im voting Archer but if you explain your strategy better maybe I could see merit possibly' doesn't feel natural. 

13 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

A woman with common sense in this group. I greatly agree with her thoughts on Nid, and would most likely look along with them at Nid for further inquiries about the murderers in the future. I would not think that someone who was about to commit murders would so whole-heartedly disagree with someone like Nid publicly. 

I'm surprised by this take. 

2 minutes ago, Mailliw73 said:

Here’s my hot take, but I think it’s totally fine to not share your vote in the thread. Am I being pushed this way subconsciously because I don’t like broad decisions about what villagers have to or have to not do? Maybe, idk, but I think there is merit to voting secretly in contrary to your public vote or not mentioning who you are going to vote for in the thread. Especially to reaction test or push on someone a bit more even while actually voting for a higher suspect. 

claim your role right now or else 

Spoiler

:P.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StrikerEZ said:

Vanala could not stand the other women. She sat there, writing in her notebook, while they all talked amongst themselves. They all had such strange ideas for how they should best go about finding these rumored murderers amongst them. At least the men seemed to be more reasonable about. Even if one of them insisted he was a cup. 

And don't get her started on the strange furry little axehound.

She glanced back at her notes. She had been trying to keep track of what people were saying, even if some of it completely baffled her. It was important for her to know what other people were thinking and planning and what they were going to do if she was going to win this. She needed this engagement.

Vanala closed her notebook. She was satisfied with her notes for the day. She had attended to some personal manners at the start of the day, but she was hopeful that she could be more focused on the trials for Adolin's heart from here on out. 

I had to do a lot of cross-referencing for Vanala's notes so will translate (and summarize) for anyone else who's lazy like I am.

Spoiler

Note that colors are my interpretations and may not be 100% accurate.

Yellow = Null, Orange = Sus, Green = Trust, Black = Inactive

  1. Kasimir: Agrees with Kas' take on Archer's random strat, but "needs to be wary of him still" due to not being active beyond that.
  2. Matrim: Suspects Mat for initially being opposed to Archer's random strat only to back off shortly after.
  3. TUA: Agreed with me (tbh I just pointed it out, don't actually think TUA is sus for this) that they reacted strongly to Archer saying he might be voting TUA.
  4. Devotary: Points out that of her few posts, Devo's were "astute," and goes to suggest not having more to say about Devo means their probably not a murderer.
  5. JNV: Agrees with JNV's opening post and supports further investigation of Archer (without voting for Archer themselves). Believes elims would not enter the thread this aggressively.
  6. Archer: Appreciates later points but refuses to look past earlier ones. Takes the stance that Archer is backtracking after making a mistake.
  7. Experience: Only says their right about vote accountability, but doesn't seem to have a read on him. ("As much as I hate to admit it." Why hate? Admit what?)
  8. Ashbringer: Finds most of what Ash has said as agreeable + appreciates Ash is holding himself accountable, but doesn't understand why he's defending Archer's proposal. Suggests that if Archer is elim, Ash requires further scrutiny.
  9. Mailliw: Hasn't posted until now. Side-eyes for inactivity so far but wants to focus on the talkers.
  10. Thaidakar: Basically gleans nothing from Thaid's few posts, but instead of susing Thaid for posting thrice and vanishing without participating more, just says "I wish she would interact with us more."
  11. Amanuensis: I'm assuming I'm green because apparently I've said things Striker agreed with (TUA call out) and said nothing that he didn't agree with? @StrikerEZ Lotus has you as Stricker in the player list so that's why I made the @Stricker joke.
  12. Illwei: Agrees with Illwei's takes on elim numbers, vote accountability, and Mat vote. Can assume this means v!read too.
  13. Bort: Hasn't posted. Side-eyes for inactivity so far but wants to focus on the talkers.
  14. Orlok: Hasn't posted. Side-eyes for inactivity so far but wants to focus on the talkers.

Okay so, I still am up for exeing Thaid but Striker is by far the riper option. Here's why:

  • I believe Archer is Village, which Striker does not
  • I believe (most) elims would stand against Archer's proposition for "vote accountability" reasons because it looks village
  • I also believe Mat is Village (particularly because he reevaluated and backtracked)
  • I don't think TUA's reaction to Archer is sus, but an elim certainly might jump on it because they're looking for maximum MLs
  • Really weird read of Devo that I can't parse (might be cause RP + Striker forced himself to give thoughts on everyone, but very off to me)
  • I don't quite have a strong read of Ash yet but I definitely don't like Striker implying Ash's alignment is tied to Archer's
  • I think there's a good chance Thaid rolled elim this game so the fact Striker only encouraged Thaid to post more without taking a stance feels potentially E/E
  • I'm always sus of people who v-read me early when I'm a villager. Villagers are more paranoid of me. Elims want to pocket me.
  • I was previously thinking Illwei might be a wolf for all the reasons Striker agrees with her, so another E/E sitch
  • Despite posting this big pseudo-reads list and supporting vote accountability, Striker did not vote

Think that about covers everything.

2 hours ago, Mailliw73 said:

Hey, got busy this afternoon and forgot the game was started so hello there. 

My initial gut reaction to Archer’s post was that it felt elimmy, but that’s eased up as I kept reading. 

Here’s my hot take, but I think it’s totally fine to not share your vote in the thread. Am I being pushed this way subconsciously because I don’t like broad decisions about what villagers have to or have to not do? Maybe, idk, but I think there is merit to voting secretly in contrary to your public vote or not mentioning who you are going to vote for in the thread. Especially to reaction test or push on someone a bit more even while actually voting for a higher suspect. 

Hello fellow Villager. Would you like to join Kas and I in ThreadPMBroship?

I agree with your hot take. Or at least, I think I agree with it, if I'm reading it right.

Here's my stance, and you can confirm if you feel the same way or not.

We absolutely need to "vote" publicly and discuss who to exe, or else the Village is doomed to never get coordinated, BUT who we "vote" publicly does not need to be who we actually vote in our pms. If a player feels they have a good reason to vote secretly, then they absolutely should. Anyone who says otherwise is doing Lotus and this game a diservice. If a mechanic exists, we should use it.

I, for one, already have plans for all kinds of vote shenanigans. Assuming, of course, that they don't interfere with our main goal of eliminating the eliminators.

Edited by Amanuensis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

We absolutely need to "vote" publicly and discuss who to exe, or else the Village is doomed to never get coordinated, BUT who we "vote" publicly does not need to be who we actually vote in our pms. If a player feels they have a good reason to vote secretly, then they absolutely should. Anyone who says otherwise is doing Lotus and this game a diservice.

I, for one, already have plans for all kinds of vote shenanigans. Assuming, of course, that they don't interfere with our main goal of eliminating the eliminators.

Yes, mostly. And the italicized part is at least half my motivation. What’s the point of a game mechanic if it’s never used? If Lotus wanted it built into the game, it storming well should have a point. 

My one slight deviation is that I think there is occasionally (at least initially) a place for not discussing your vote in the thread at all and then placing one secretly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ashbringer said:

A Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good fight!

-Santa Claus, MR56 (paraphrased)

I still never got my gift and I'm mad about it <_<

3 minutes ago, Lotus said:

Bold of you to assume this mechanic isn't just to make it less work for me :P

I'll admit, I didn't consider GM laziness to be a factor, but even so! Every mechanic is a tool and this one is rare enough that it needs some testing :ph34r:

2 minutes ago, Mailliw73 said:

Yes, mostly. And the italicized part is at least half my motivation. What’s the point of a game mechanic if it’s never used? If Lotus wanted it built into the game, it storming well should have a point. 

My one slight deviation is that I think there is occasionally (at least initially) a place for not discussing your vote in the thread at all and then placing one secretly. 

We're (mostly) on the same page then, cool.

The issue I have with your deviation is that we're in a game with no PMs. The only way Villagers can communicate their intent is in thread, while the Elims have a doc to coordinate in.

At the very least, some Villagers need to be open with their votes so the ones being secretive can make decisions that impact / advance the game. Otherwise, the Elims will be able to do whatever and blend in way too easily.

Plus, I'm of the belief that every turn that goes by without a decent amount of effort put into exe discussion is a severe setback for the Village. Especially in a Mountainous setup where the only way can find elims is with maximum vote participation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:
  • Ashbringer: Finds most of what Ash has said as agreeable + appreciates Ash is holding himself accountable, but doesn't understand why he's defending Archer's proposal. Suggests that if Archer is elim, Ash requires further scrutiny.

To be less of a jokester now, I will note that I ran the previous Anon Vote QF (which did indeed let me not pay too much thread attention all the time :P). There most people just stated their own vote in thread and in PM, Elims and Village alike. Which is their choice, but not the choice I'd prefer to happen here, because there's so much that can happen with anon votes.

I would prefer narrower suspicions (and discussion of those positions), but there's also the inherit non-randomness that Elims knowing each other have. They can ignore that, but even that fact can tell us something... we just need to figure it out. Which might be possible, might not - that's more on the village than on me.

I guess the idea is if we find out one player picked two "suspicious" people, then we later learn their alignments, we can learn a decent amount about the player based on which they actually voted for. But I wouldn't do it past C1, or C2 if no leads show up.

 

Also, I'm widely known for getting... slightly tunnelly about villagers lying, which is why I'd like to find a way for secret votes to be explicitly secret. Hence the floating stab vote.

... idk how much sense that made but that's what I've got.

 

1 minute ago, Amanuensis said:

I still never got my gift and I'm mad about it <_<

That was Araris's fault not mine :(

I can see if I can get you a present... I still need to RP and things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I believe Archer is Village, which Striker does not

That’s fair.

28 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I believe (most) elims would stand against Archer's proposition for "vote accountability" reasons because it "looks village"

I’m not sure what this has to do with me.

29 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I also believe Mat is Village (particularly because he reevaluated and backtracked)

I think the way I was trying to do my RP voice made this unclear. I think it’s odd that Mat backtracked, but not like full elim read odd.

30 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I don't think TUA's reaction to Archer is sus, but an elim certainly might jump on it because they're looking for maximum MLs

Idk, I think it’s sus. Especially because TUA was just an option Archer gave for himself.

31 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

Really weird read of Devo that I can't parse (might be cause RP + Striker forced himself to give thoughts on everyone, but very off to me)

It’s because I was trying to do it in RP and honestly didn’t have much of a read on Devo. Though my read is actually probably more positive for them than it came off in the reads list.

32 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I don't quite have a strong read of Ash yet but I definitely don't like Striker implying Ash's alignment is tied to Archer's

I didn’t think I was trying to tie Ash’s alignment to Archer. Was more trying to say that Ash would be my first person to look at if Archer doesn’t pan out.

33 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I think there's a good chance Thaid rolled elim this game so the fact Striker only encouraged Thaid to post more without taking a stance feels potentially E/E

I mean, I can’t read Thaid. So there is genuine confusion there. I think my read came off more positive than I intended it to.

35 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I'm always sus of people who v-read me early when I'm a villager. Villagers are more paranoid of me. Elims want to pocket me.

I would rather not be paranoid of you. You’ve been village the past few games, and the way you’re talking now feels like it did in those games.

36 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

I was previously thinking Illwei might be a wolf for all the reasons Striker agrees with her, so another E/E sitch

…you were reading her as a wolf for being right about the most likely distro for a 15 player vanilla game?

39 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

Despite posting this big pseudo-reads list and supporting vote accountability, Striker did not vote

…I knew I forgot to do something. I was barely able to keep my eyes open as I was doing the second half of that post, so it slipped my mind to actually add a vote. Archer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StrikerEZ said:

I’m not sure what this has to do with me.

Basically, when Archer proposed his broad-reads-anon-voting thing, I walked myself through how people might approach it from a Village perspective and an Elim perspective. In this case, Villagers could react in pretty much any way depending on individual playstyle (in which case, I'd rely on tone reads / logical consistency to determine sincerity) while Elims would likely react in a narrower, more straightforward denial kind of way (with some exceptions depending on risk appetite) that overall looks Village-positive, in order to seem like their contributing without actually doing much. You fit the bill, as did Illwei, so for a D1 lead, that's what I'm looking at today.

1 hour ago, StrikerEZ said:

I think the way I was trying to do my RP voice made this unclear. I think it’s odd that Mat backtracked, but not like full elim read odd.

1 hour ago, StrikerEZ said:

It’s because I was trying to do it in RP and honestly didn’t have much of a read on Devo. Though my read is actually probably more positive for them than it came off in the reads list.

1 hour ago, StrikerEZ said:

I mean, I can’t read Thaid. So there is genuine confusion there. I think my read came off more positive than I intended it to.

Can buy that RP voice and structure forced me to interpret what you meant by these observations more, and since I was looking for a particular red flag and you waved it, my brain jumped to less charitable takes. That said, I really don't know how to read Devo early in games (let alone for what she's posted so far), so if you've got something that could enlighten me there, I'd appreciate it :P

1 hour ago, StrikerEZ said:

Idk, I think it’s sus. Especially because TUA was just an option Archer gave for himself.

But, like. Why would an elim react that way in this circumstance, or even mention retaliating? As you pointed out, TUA kind of agreed with what Archer was saying, so it's not like he's sus of him. Personally, I would expect an elim to not care about a single random vote (that's just a maybe between 3 options) when they've got 2 other elims to vote alongside them. Feels like a standard Villager-reacts-to-page-1-poke-vote-with-a-poke-vote to me.

1 hour ago, StrikerEZ said:

I didn’t think I was trying to tie Ash’s alignment to Archer. Was more trying to say that Ash would be my first person to look at if Archer doesn’t pan out.

I'll admit, that's even weirder to me. So if Archer flips V, you'd think Ash is probably E because he engaged with Archer's broad-votes proposal?

1 hour ago, StrikerEZ said:

I would rather not be paranoid of you. You’ve been village the past few games, and the way you’re talking now feels like it did in those games.

Can anyone else confirm that how I'm talking now feels like I did in my last few village games? @Kasimir @Archer @Matrim's Dice @Ashbringer

I can't really gauge this myself, so very curious.

1 hour ago, StrikerEZ said:

…you were reading her as a wolf for being right about the most likely distro for a 15 player vanilla game?

Yup. Her first post mostly just said what I already did a few posts up + mentioned there'd be 4 elims if the game wasn't properly balanced on top of the fact shorter cycles and hidden votes are elim-sided + expressed the opinion that secret votes are bad (flag I was looking for). Altogether, it feels like a post for the sake of posting / looking village, rather than a post for the sake of solving the game.

Edited by Amanuensis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ashbringer said:

I think we need to strike a balance. The last time we played anon voting, eventually all the votes matched the thread, which basically makes the game a less quick Vanilla. So voting in secret can be useful... just need to figure out how. 

This is actually generally my view, and I've also expressed before my distaste of overfocusing on Grand Plans C1. I respect their role as a discussion stimulus, but I am always of the mind that players are going to player, and it's a nice way to avoid having to spend more time discussing suspicions. There's something to be said for having some accountability, and there's something to be said for using the PM voting for various reasons, including train baiting and trying to lure/provoke reactions from Elims. I'm not really sold on mismatched votes being prima facie Evil, though I will want to question the player in such instances, and I do think due diligence demands that we do so.

In general, balance in all things, and I'm not especially wedded to either. If people expect my red vote to be a reliable predictor of what my anon PM vote will be, you might want to be prepared for disappointment :P But I do think that if my red vote here isn't at least a credible threat with a somewhat credible promise of follow-through, then pressure on players is diluted.

6 hours ago, Amanuensis said:

Also, hallo Keredin :wub: Personally, I don't really believe in last loves. My hearts insatiable, you see. I'm always looking for the next one.

Unfortunately, love isn't transitive, Awoman <3 While you may be my last love, I may not be your last love.

Alas, the world would be a simpler place if love was symmetric, Noble One. Then I could be certain that loving you meant you love me too </3

6 hours ago, Archer said:

don't listen to old Archer, that guy was inexperienced. And his reasoning that game needed work, even though he caught onto an elim eventually. I honestly think I'll confuse myself if I try to figure out why my thinking has shifted, so I'll just say that this round, this is how I'd like to play. 

Is it possible for you to at least spell out in raw form one or two considerations that caused you to change your mind? With the caveat you may have done so later but I'm working through the thread now and if you haven't yet, then yes please :P This is essentially a 'show your working' request.

6 hours ago, Archer said:

Interesting question, very in your elim meta, which we all know now. >:)  It boils down to C1 is a shot in the dark while the other cycles aren't. I'm not expecting an elim flip today.

Will wonders never cease. You know my Elim meta when I myself haven't the faintest idea due to not having randed Evil in seven years! :P (The BT doesn't count in my view - time and hour pressures were too distortive, so I'm just relegated to making educated but potentially out-of-date guesses.)

Hmm. Okay, so fair enough. Is it fair to say then that you expect things to be played a bit more straight once we have voting results from C1 to go off? Possibly with a bit of leeway due to anon/thread mismatch shenanigans?

6 hours ago, Ashbringer said:

Hmm... maybe an idea is for everyone to vote on two people in thread, and secretly pick one of the two to vote for real? 

I...

Are you and Archer really having a potayto-potahto disagreement? Because either I'm dead tired or I'm not seeing a substantive difference in your suggestions - I'm going to assume you're committed to this as a more long-term strategy than Archer is, and also, that you want a vote pool of two whereas Archer suggested...two or three.

6 hours ago, Ashbringer said:

I think what we want to avoid is when we go around C2 asking people why they voted for the Villager and get almost all responses of "it was just a random vote". Way too easy for Elims to hide that way. (Sort of what Mat said.)

I agree with this, but I think that's why knowing the suspect pool matters. I could see someone who is indifferent between two or three suspects just going to RNGesus for it, but being able to declare your pool and how you come by your pool matters too. It's the 'show your working' deal again. And I guess in saying this, I've more or less talked myself around to Archer's perspective, so there's that, along with the fact I don't think you and Archer actually substantively disagree.

I do worry the pool dilutes pressure, but I'm willing to wait and see - and if enough pools overlap on a player, this should reinstate a sense of pressure.

3 hours ago, StrikerEZ said:
  • Lucy the axehound: They seemed to get very aggressive with Nid when they suggested their strategy, but then backed off for no apparent reason. Does the axehound know more than we do? I'll have to keep an eye on that creature. 

I like that he re-evaluated. We should do that more. I relate to it because I had an instinctive "no, why" reaction to Archer's proposal but the more I've gone through the thread and thought it over, the more I do think it has merit.

2 hours ago, Mailliw73 said:

Here’s my hot take, but I think it’s totally fine to not share your vote in the thread. Am I being pushed this way subconsciously because I don’t like broad decisions about what villagers have to or have to not do? Maybe, idk, but I think there is merit to voting secretly in contrary to your public vote or not mentioning who you are going to vote for in the thread. Especially to reaction test or push on someone a bit more even while actually voting for a higher suspect. 

Same as my response to Ash, in a nutshell. Agree, and balance in all things. No current real read on Maili as I can see that coming from both V and E Maili.

2 hours ago, Archer said:

Step 4. ...somewhat randomly. It's an allegedly random choice from our pool. Which again reduces the certainty that you can argue your way out of a vote. Unless you can fully persuade someone, the coin might make them fall back on you. The process of creating a suspect list should reduce the amount of votes that land on villagers, but even if they do, it's not an unexpected outcome for C1. It's worth it for the pressure this creates. 

I am not fully sold on the idea that this generates more pressure than playing it straight, but I've already commented that I think overlapping pools could plausibly increase pressure, so I am willing to give this a shot.

At this point, probably leaning at least null+ on Archer. As I said in MR56, Archer likes his C1 Grand Plans, period, so I don't want to overcredit him for this, but I feel as though while I'm not fully sold on it, I like the train of thought. JNV, interested if this has shifted your thoughts on Archer?

1 hour ago, Amanuensis said:

We absolutely need to "vote" publicly and discuss who to exe, or else the Village is doomed to never get coordinated, BUT who we "vote" publicly does not need to be who we actually vote in our pms. If a player feels they have a good reason to vote secretly, then they absolutely should. Anyone who says otherwise is doing Lotus and this game a diservice. If a mechanic exists, we should use it.

Yes.

1 hour ago, Ashbringer said:

I would prefer narrower suspicions (and discussion of those positions), but there's also the inherit non-randomness that Elims knowing each other have. They can ignore that, but even that fact can tell us something... we just need to figure it out. Which might be possible, might not - that's more on the village than on me.

I prefer broader or more fluid suspicions early on - I think we just have to spread pressure around as much as possible. It's generally my view on D1, and I think I've commented before in AG8 that I largely agree with Axl's view on D1 votes but we differ in the details. 

1 hour ago, Ashbringer said:

I guess the idea is if we find out one player picked two "suspicious" people, then we later learn their alignments, we can learn a decent amount about the player based on which they actually voted for. But I wouldn't do it past C1, or C2 if no leads show up.

Not to raise the trauma of MR56 again because flipless arson can go to Braize ( >:( !!!) but even having reads of the people in that player's suspicion pool would help, in my view. It at least establishes a picture of who they're going after and who they are selecting - even if ostensibly at random - over the others.

1 hour ago, StrikerEZ said:

I think the way I was trying to do my RP voice made this unclear. I think it’s odd that Mat backtracked, but not like full elim read odd.

Why though? I did, Maili did. I think re-evaluation is normal and healthy, what is so odd about it?

Edited to add: @Amanuensis - Got a clearer read off you in LG83, but I think that was partly due to the circumstances of the PM and my revealing my Security Officer status to you earlier. But as I've stated in AG8, I generally default read you Null+ or light Village early on - as with Orlok, I do think you are both too helpful to the Village to not do that, but I am perfectly happy to revise that view based on reads. I didn't ID E!Aman in AG8 via tone - I IDed him because of his reactions to D3 Meerkat, the PM thing that tripped red flags for me, but most importantly, his defense of E!Szeth, who had flipped. So the short answer is that I never get clear reads on you early on but just pragmatically chunk you in the Null+s/Light Village and revise when more voting data (and other forms of data) emerge.

Edited by Kasimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Amanuensis said:

At the very least, some Villagers need to be open with their votes so the ones being secretive can make decisions that impact / advance the game. Otherwise, the Elims will be able to do whatever and blend in way too easily.

Oh yes, I definitely agree. And with the second paragraph that I didn’t quote. Everyone should discuss suspicions in thread since this game can’t be won solo and there are no PMs. I just don’t think those suspicion discussions need to entail any sort of sharing about vote plans at all. This cycle I honestly don’t have anything more than a couple of gut suspicions based off reactions to others’ posts but I want to try not sharing them for this first cycle. Hold me to sharing them next cycle if you want, this isn’t something I plan to do on a regular basis. 

2 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

No current real read on Maili as I can see that coming from both V and E Maili.

Good. Maybe this sounds weird, but I want this to be obvious that this is something that is not dependent on my alignment. Game mechanics should always be viable options for either team to pursue or they should be removed from the game design imo. This is my stance on Smokers originally and it’s transferring here too and it’s the hill I’ll die on. :P 

3 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Maili did.

What did I re-evaluate? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mailliw73 said:

Oh yes, I definitely agree. And with the second paragraph that I didn’t quote. Everyone should discuss suspicions in thread since this game can’t be won solo and there are no PMs. I just don’t think those suspicion discussions need to entail any sort of sharing about vote plans at all. This cycle I honestly don’t have anything more than a couple of gut suspicions based off reactions to others’ posts but I want to try not sharing them for this first cycle. Hold me to sharing them next cycle if you want, this isn’t something I plan to do on a regular basis. 

THESE WORDS ARE ACCEPTED.

1 minute ago, Mailliw73 said:

Good. Maybe this sounds weird, but I want this to be obvious that this is something that is not dependent on my alignment. Game mechanics should always be viable options for either team to pursue or they should be removed from the game design imo. This is my stance on Smokers originally and it’s transferring here too and it’s the hill I’ll die on. :P 

The AG2 Tyrian Eight thank you :P 

1 minute ago, Mailliw73 said:

What did I re-evaluate? 

This:

2 hours ago, Mailliw73 said:

My initial gut reaction to Archer’s post was that it felt elimmy, but that’s eased up as I kept reading. 

You had a negative initial gut reaction, as I did, and it resolved as you kept reading (or over time/thread-reading and with thought), like I did.

I can see some kinds of re-evaluation being Evil - poor, unsignalled re-evaluation that appears to skip steps even with working showed, but having more or less gone through the same process with regard to Archer's proposal myself, I'm not exactly feeling the Mat sus over that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StrikerEZ said:

Lucy the axehound: They seemed to get very aggressive with Nid when they suggested their strategy, but then backed off for no apparent reason. Does the axehound know more than we do? I'll have to keep an eye on that creature. 

This reeks of fabrication to me, because that's not how I think that went down at all. I wasn't aggressive for either side because I'm kinda 'eh' for both voting arguments so the back off wasn't a back off at all. I'm curious where you got 'back off' from 

  1. Me disagreeing with Archer about hiding votes the whole game
  2. Me realizing that Archer wasn't speaking about the whole game, only C1, and being okay with that (to some extent)
  3. Me liking Ash's suggestion as it provides a medium

Cause that looks pretty consistent to me :P To me this take looks like you needed a reason to read me as something and pulled it out of thin air. I get a similar vibe from a lot of the other reads on your list as well. Full reads lists early on come from an elim more often than not, see Hyena from the AG for an example.

2 hours ago, Archer said:

The whole idea is that everyone is under an equal amount of legitimate pressure and the only effective way of saving yourself is by voting in self-preservation. Villagers don't care about that, but the elims will. 

Hahahahahahahaha

Heh

This is wrong :P At least in my case. I don't think self pres/not self pres is a valid technique to catch elims, it certainly isn't when talking about me. I know I'm village and that's the only person I know is village, you better believe I'm self pressing every time I'm in a tie.

Not quoting the rest of your post but I think that you're treating this too different from a normal game, it's really not that different imo. Sure, there's the vote mechanic, but I think that most villagers will vote in accordance with their thread votes, and that most elims probably will too cause they blend in that way.

1 hour ago, Amanuensis said:

Okay so, I still am up for exeing Thaid but Striker is by far the riper option. Here's why

Heyo mindmeld

1 hour ago, Ashbringer said:

I will note that I ran the previous Anon Vote QF

...Forget what I said about being elim in the previous iteration and there being a stacked elim team, I'm thinking of a completely different game :P. Sorry, carry on...

1 hour ago, Ashbringer said:

Also, I'm widely known for getting... slightly tunnelly about villagers lying, which is why I'd like to find a way for secret votes to be explicitly secret. Hence the floating stab vote.

I think in this game we should be lenient about lying, because of the voting mechanics and the possibilities they provide.

Great, right as I'm about to post this I get ninja'd by both Aman and Kas with a multiquote apiece, hello guys :P 

12 minutes ago, Amanuensis said:

Can anyone else confirm that how I'm talking now feels like I did in my last few village games? @Kasimir @Archer @Matrim's Dice @Ashbringer

It's different from the recent LG

I barely could tell a difference between Hyena and TJ's MR, feel/tone wise. I haven't noticed anything different but I'd say yeah, your prodding of certain people and points feels about the same. Idk why you felt the need to ping four people to confirm something like that but /shrug :P 

11 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

I had an instinctive "no, why" reaction to Archer's proposal but the more I've gone through the thread and thought it over, the more I do think it has merit.

@Striker this is me :P. Maybe less the 'think it has merit' part but I had the instinctive reaction that I changed when I actually read the post a few times.

11 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Archer likes his C1 Grand Plans, period

^A large part of my v lean of Archer right now is this

Striker

Edited by Matrim's Dice
Literally forgot a word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

You had a negative initial gut reaction, as I did, and it resolved as you kept reading (or over time/thread-reading and with thought), like I did.

I can see some kinds of re-evaluation being Evil - poor, unsignalled re-evaluation that appears to skip steps even with working showed, but having more or less gone through the same process with regard to Archer's proposal myself, I'm not exactly feeling the Mat sus over that. 

Ah, I see. I thought you meant about my position on secret voting and I was confused. That position I held before this started and I’ll keep after this game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...