Mid-Range Game 59: Alcatraz vs the Lens Destructors

[Steeldancer]

Whoaaa I totally forgot I signed up for this. 

[Mat]

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Novel said:

Because when people run out of options they do a CC, which almost never actually catches an elim. Hence why it works well when I'm an elim and badly when I'm a villager.

I mean. I know that. I meant like, getting CCd is never good for you regardless of anything. So, talk  The same goes for everyone.

Edited July 22, 2022 by Matrim's Dice

[The Unknown Ajah]

1 minute ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I mean. I know that. I meant like, getting CCd is never good for you regardless of anything. So, talk  The same goes for everyone.

I talk when I can, I have a pretty busy life, and the time I do have I rarely get on the Shard.

Edited July 22, 2022 by The Unknown Novel

[Mat]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Novel said:

I talk when I can, I have a pretty busy life, and the time I do have I rarely get on the Shard.

I know, definitely not trying to throw judgment on anybody. That kind of schedule is for the best, anyway. You do a good job balancing it all.

[Steeldancer]

I just get overly engrossed in yet another Zelda game. Which.... I'm probably going to go back to here in a few minutes lol. 

This time it's skyward sword. 

[Fifth Scholar]

5 hours ago, Conquestor said:

"You make a good point." Theo said looking at the man. "Although, I have to wonder about all the other random accusations goin around." He stepped up to Grischuk and put his hand out for an apologetic hand shake. "I realize that you are new around here and I apologize for my rudeness. As you can see, not everything is going well around here." Fifth Scholar

Also, does everyone know me because of that game??? As I said in one of my pms. "Yes, I do still feel a little embarrassed about that... I should've known that I wasn't going to be able to really run the game. I was pretty young at the time. I wanted to try so badly and then got overwhelmed pretty quickly." I'd also like to officially apologize to @Elbereth & @Darkness Ascendant for that whole thing... I would like to try again at some point, now that I'm older, but that won't be till next year at least so I can play several games.

Grischuk blinked in surprise, accepting the proffered hand and shaking it firmly. “I understand very little, but I do understand zis. At very least you are putting in vork to solve zis problem, vich is more zan can be said for others.” He grimaced. “And you are certainly correct zat ve cannot simply go after quiet types forever. Zere vill be reckoning if ve cannot sort ourselves out.”

No, I don’t blame you for that at all—in fact, I’d kinda forgotten you had to leave the game in the first place! I remembered it because until a couple of years ago it held the record for shortest LG because of all the murder (obviously excluding 15a).  It was a fun concept though and it’d be cool to see you back as a GM eventually  

3 hours ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

I don't remember you from that game. I do remember you because of Alvron's Death Note game in which I betrayed and publicly killed you. Sorry about that!  

Hey @Steeldancer, I remember you from ages back. How are you doing in this fine Archive? Got any thoughts?

Does anyone have thoughts on leaving it tied to see if the Elims are willing to break the tie to reduce risk of RNG lynching one of them?

My thoughts are that this is probably a bad idea, since it requires not only elim non-interference but also complete Village buy-in, which we’re unlikely to get. Even the flailing poke-voting will probably get us further, since it’ll force people to take some kind of stand rather than just voting on an assigned random target.

26 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I think this idea has a lot more credence to it if the people tied have done more things, or if there are a decent amount of reasons behind them— in the current state of the VC, I don’t see this being very useful. I suppose an elim would have to break the tie rather blatantly, but I think doing nothing from right now is the same as randomly picking from the player list and killing whoever we pick.

All that was said assuming the VC is tied when I don’t actually know if it is  In general though I’d rather kill with intent than RNG.

You should talk a lot for the benefit of everyone else :P. Perhaps consider why it gets you killed  

The false positives is another good point.

Conquestor for his vote on Fifth when I thought it was clear that there wasn’t real malicious intent on Fifth’s part, and then also for Con’s quick retraction of said vote.

Hi!  Does Con work as a nickname, or do you have another?

Hmm. As much as I don’t appreciate being voted on, I don’t really want to kill Conq C1 of his first game back either.  Partially agreed that I’m not 100% happy with the interaction, but it could just as easily be “working with a meta from five years ago and an unfamiliar playing field” rather than any malicious intent. We can revisit it if Ash flips evil, but until then I’d chalk it up as NAI, and either way don’t think we should be killing him for it now.

20 minutes ago, The Unknown Novel said:

because all of you are jerks

Because when people run out of options they do a CC, which almost never actually catches an elim. Hence why it works well when I'm an elim and badly when I'm a villager.

Eh. LG41 it got the Elims to bus an initially inactive teammate, so it has some record of effectiveness. I would prefer we vote on other grounds, and abandoning the Crusade after D1 makes sense, but this early in the game there’s no harm in pushing quiet players into speaking.

[Mat]

1 minute ago, Fifth Scholar said:

Hmm. As much as I don’t appreciate being voted on, I don’t really want to kill Conq C1 of his first game back either.  Partially agreed that I’m not 100% happy with the interaction, but it could just as easily be “working with a meta from five years ago and an unfamiliar playing field” rather than any malicious intent. We can revisit it if Ash flips evil, but until then I’d chalk it up as NAI, and either way don’t think we should be killing him for it now.

Conq, not Con, noted

Yeah, I agree, but on my part I think it's better than a random vote on Drought. The meta/playing field thought crossed my mind though.

[Kasimir]

4 hours ago, A Joe in the Bush said:

Does anyone have thoughts on leaving it tied to see if the Elims are willing to break the tie to reduce risk of RNG lynching one of them?

So here's the thing. I generally find that move pretty informative, but as the popular AoE2 response goes - it depends. I think TUN and Mat are both missing the point: forcing a tie isn't about expecting the tie to actually kill an Elim, this early on. It's about trying to get information from who is invested in breaking the tie, and who isn't. A high temperature/activity tie is highly indicative of high investment, which in turn, could be indicative of Elim activity. It also minimally lets us identify potential teamings, and draw connections between players. This is helpful, especially when we do get a flip, or are trying to narrow down our suspect pool of Elims.

But—as with most strategies, it has certain assumptions baked into it to be effective. I think we've tacitly been leaving it at a tie. Unless you're Evil (not enough info to tell, not really interested in chasing that line right now), the fact that no one particularly cared and that the cycle has been so low temperature so far is suggestive of low investment. This could be for several reasons:

A. Elims aren't interested, because one of their own isn't endangered
B. Elims have high risk threshold, therefore are okay with a several-way tie
C. Too early in the cycle
D. Two or more of the above

Against C, I would say the latest trend has been for Elims to push earlier with regard to breaking ties that are bad for them. Fifth's tie-breaking vote would fit that profile, but my question would be how well-versed Fifth would be with that meta. Maybe, he sure heard us yelling about it in AG8, but he's still a returning player, this being his second game back, so that much is unclear to me. I lean towards no - on reflection, a one-vote deep tie isn't a serious threat to the Elims, just get the threatened member on to self-pres. Self-pres votes aren't very alignment-indicative (I don't really want to say NAI because we can insert Illwei's rant here), but also because there are players like Mat who simply don't care to die no matter their alignment.

For B, I'll note this has been true in many recent games, including cases of three-vote deep ties. Sure, Araris isn't playing, and this game has a vastly different playerbase, so maybe, but I'm not certain we have a good estimation of Elim risk appetite right now.

Long story short, the circumstances seem to indicate this just isn't a promising tack right now. But I never want to FAFO with ties when we're playing closer to the wire—the time for that has long passed.

The caveat here you might need to be aware of is I primarily do vote analysis these days so I stop feeling guilt about MLing Orlok and Creccio on the basis of bad post reads, so this sort of thing really helps me out in terms of analysis.

7 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

With every passing game I find myself more converted to the contribution crusade

El isn't here to say this, so I'll say this for her: the contribution crusade died for a reason. Let it stay dead.

6 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said:

If @Herowannabe ever rejoins us on this website I will be sure he is informed of your conversion.  

1. You should know better >:(

2. Is he even a member of the crusade anymore?

3. He is on this website (I think?), just not on this sub. He GMed a TDP game, it was wild, but anyway it sort of fizzled out D: (Sorry Hreo...)

Ash Mat - that vote never had teeth anyway, so what was the point of it?

[Fifth Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

El isn't here to say this, so I'll say this for her: the contribution crusade died for a reason. Let it stay dead.

6 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said:

If @Herowannabe ever rejoins us on this website I will be sure he is informed of your conversion.  

1. You should know better >:(

2. Is he even a member of the crusade anymore?

3. He is on this website (I think?), just not on this sub. He GMed a TDP game, it was wild, but anyway it sort of fizzled out D: (Sorry Hreo...)

Ash Mat - that vote never had teeth anyway, so what was the point of it?

I mean, fair on the “died for a reason” thing, but it works if pokes on inactives are treated as a means and not an end, which was probably the Crusade’s fundamental mistake. I like making people who haven’t posted squirm a bit. Step into the light.

Sir, I never know better  And while I’m on mobile and thus can’t check, I think Hreo’s signature still shows his Crusading loyalties. Good to know he’s still around, though. Time to talk him into AG9  

[The_God_King]

McGee had a bad habit. He liked things tidy but the Library archive was anything but. Those piles of books and articles were always scattered randomly and if only he could spend some time organizing. Those dastardly librarians had the most clever organizational scheme, but that was the first step. After that, you would need catalogs, and supervisors, and then.... darn, that's how the librarians get you! McGee needed to find a puzzle to do before his head exploded.

 

Also, what are the curses for Alcatraz? I need some good expletives to fill in my RP! 

 

 

After being gone for a while seeing CC discussion brings back great memories. I think I used to have strong opinions on that but I think those have mellowed out. The more discussion the better! I think I'm going to hold my vote (for now) because I don't think I personally have enough information quite yet

 

So thoughts on lenses:

Courier's Lenses - Safe way to send PM's but I'm not sure how useful it could be
Disguiser's Lense - A good way to stay somewhat safe from other lenses but doubles your chances of being killed by Elim. Dangerous but useful
Tracker's Lenses - Seeing actions, straightforward application

Translator’s Lenses - An interesting use to see some behind-the-scenes madness but the random nature could leave it a bit vulnerable to misinterpretation.

Truthfinder's Lenses - Blocking is always useful, straightforward application

Windstormer's Lenses - Similar to the Disguiser's Lense but without the drawback, One shot and limits ability to have other lenses. Almost feels like it could be detrimental since it doesn't stop the exe

Voidstromer's Lenses - A great way to stir the pot, I feel that this one could result in some interesting passing of lenses but could also give the Elim's the lenses they want

 

 

[The Unknown Ajah]

25 minutes ago, The_God_King said:

McGee had a bad habit. He liked things tidy but the Library archive was anything but. Those piles of books and articles were always scattered randomly and if only he could spend some time organizing. Those dastardly librarians had the most clever organizational scheme, but that was the first step. After that, you would need catalogs, and supervisors, and then.... darn, that's how the librarians get you! McGee needed to find a puzzle to do before his head exploded.

 

Also, what are the curses for Alcatraz? I need some good expletives to fill in my RP!

Alliterative animals, so first a verb, then an animal that's name starts with the same first letter. Ex: Galluping Gazelles.

28 minutes ago, The_God_King said:

Disguiser's Lense - A good way to stay somewhat safe from other lenses but doubles your chances of being killed by Elim. Dangerous but useful

Actually, I think it blocks kills too, but if your target is killed, you both die.

[Elandera]

Hey everyone! I have a quick announcement to make. The OoA was a bit out of order due to changes that were made to the rules but not the OoA. 

Note that the Disguiser's Lens action happens simultaneously with the Windstormer's Lens action. It has been changed in the master rule doc.

[Mat]

1 hour ago, Kasimir said:

So here's the thing. I generally find that move pretty informative, but as the popular AoE2 response goes - it depends. I think TUN and Mat are both missing the point: forcing a tie isn't about expecting the tie to actually kill an Elim, this early on. It's about trying to get information from who is invested in breaking the tie, and who isn't.

I'm aware of that, yes- but for me, the strategy more often than not ends in a false positive like TUN is saying. Villagers break ties too, villagers are the ones with actual reads, and that's self pres aside. I think info from this is best gained when the tie forms without intent to form a tie, if you get my meaning.

1 hour ago, Kasimir said:

El isn't here to say this, so I'll say this for her: the contribution crusade died for a reason. Let it stay dead.

Take my statement loosely, it wasn't meant to be completely literal  I'm not actively seeking the CC out, as you can see. I just... don't love 1 page cycle threads :P. It's exactly what Fifth said, for me, a means not an end. 

1 hour ago, Kasimir said:

Ash Mat - that vote never had teeth anyway, so what was the point of it?

This reads like you wrote a line or so about why the CC is bad and then realized you wrote yourself into a corner and had to unvote :P. Can't decide if that's villagery or not.

[Kasimir]

15 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

This reads like you wrote a line or so about why the CC is bad and then realized you wrote yourself into a corner and had to unvote :P. Can't decide if that's villagery or not.

I've been consistent about why I think the CC is bad, all the way through AG8 (I'm pretty sure I said that even in AG7, but that's further back than I can remember), and my voting style hasn't shifted. You're welcome to check how often I have a trend of naked votes early on. You're the one who insists on casting my votes as CC votes, not me  On the one hand, you always insist naked votes have to be CC votes, so that's on you and normal for you. On the other hand, you're still not addressing the point, I see :eyes:

15 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I'm aware of that, yes- but for me, the strategy more often than not ends in a false positive like TUN is saying. Villagers break ties too, villagers are the ones with actual reads, and that's self pres aside. I think info from this is best gained when the tie forms without intent to form a tie, if you get my meaning.

The point is to gain information and to gain reads. Talking about it ending in a false positive is the assumption that it's meant to lynch an Elim - which no, we don't always LG84 a game, unfortunately. No disagreement on not explicitly verbalising the intent to form a tie, but that's really the result of Joe asking the question rather than an issue with the strategy.

15 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Take my statement loosely, it wasn't meant to be completely literal  I'm not actively seeking the CC out, as you can see. I just... don't love 1 page cycle threads :P. It's exactly what Fifth said, for me, a means not an end. 

Honestly that is really what is pinging me about you so far, next to the pointless Conq vote. It feels very performative - there are ways to keep a thread alive beyond low-stakes ways of just asking people to post. You've seen them in action via El - it's true they're tiring to do, but that's the entire point of it. Pointing out people should contribute more is making a low-stakes observation and feels more like accumulating credit than a commitment to actually brokering and sustaining discussion.

Edited to add:

I'd further point out the reason I powerfully dislike talk of reasons being the most important is that yes, Villagers have reasons, and so do Elims. That's precisely the point why evaluating the reasons alone won't get you where you need either! You have to look at the gamestate, and that involves applying pressure, and that involves looking at what people do when their tactical objectives are under threat!

Edited July 22, 2022 by Kasimir

[Mat]

4 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

On the other hand, you're still not addressing the point, I see :eyes:

To be fair, I did think that the line after you voted me was in reference to your own vote  

Sure, I'll probably unvote Conq by EoD, but... I also might not. Like, if no one else votes him then he's not in danger, and I don't like the other candidates, I'm going to vote where I feel the best voting. Even if that isn't necessarily a 'good' spot.

Calling the vote pointless seems incorrect when you yourself were just arguing for votes that add pressure. Why doesn't my vote add as much pressure to Conq as yours does to me? A vote is a vote is a vote, and even though it is agreed to be nice to returning/new players (and I do not in the slightest disagree with that) I also think that they shouldn't get a free pass C1. Conq being new is entirely irrelevant to why I cast the vote in the first place, it just doesn't have an effect on me taking it off right now either.

10 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

It feels very performative - there are ways to keep a thread alive beyond low-stakes ways of just asking people to post. You've seen them in action via El - it's true they're tiring to do, but that's the entire point of it. Pointing out people should contribute more is making a low-stakes observation and feels more like accumulating credit than a commitment to actually brokering and sustaining discussion.

I'm decidedly bad at coming up with a break-the-ice topic, so C1 especially I like to wait for someone (like Joe) to do it for me. I'm more than happy to reply and sustain the discussion, but uh, don't expect me to start it that often xD I'm the same way IRL too, I like sustaining conversations but have no clue how to get them going. Sorry if my promptings got annoying, didn't mean to offend any low-posters.

All this seems more tied to my playing philosophy rather than my play, but I suppose I have been more vocal about it so far?

[Kasimir]

7 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

To be fair, I did think that the line after you voted me was in reference to your own vote  

Wait what why would I refer to my own vote :joy:

7 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Calling the vote pointless seems incorrect when you yourself were just arguing for votes that add pressure. Why doesn't my vote add as much pressure to Conq as yours does to me? A vote is a vote is a vote, and even though it is agreed to be nice to returning/new players (and I do not in the slightest disagree with that) I also think that they shouldn't get a free pass C1. Conq being new is entirely irrelevant to why I cast the vote in the first place, it just doesn't have an effect on me taking it off right now either.

Because Conq is not in danger of death. You are. Conq can safely ignore the vote, knowing that no one will ever consent to killing him C1, and answer out of the goodness of his heart alone. Or blackness, I guess, if he's Evil. You could argue there's some infinitesimally small pressure to seeing your name in red, which I won't deny with, but he's nowhere near to becoming a realistic endgame lead train, which means that there is no world in which he is going to die C1, and so the vote doesn't do much for him. 

Like - what's the point of a vote? Willingness to kill, right? It's a threat and a promise of death. (Hi Araris ) Your vote is your voice and your chief weapon as a Villager and that's always been my take on it. If we are starting this game knowing there is no realistic way most of us will consent to kill Conq D1, where is that pressure coming from? You could argue that as a returning player, Conq might predate that meta, and that might be true, but if Conq is Evil, then unless Conq is on an all-returnee team (IDK, do you think so? Where does your confidence in that come from? - feels like the only team that might not be aware would have to be a Conq-Joe team, since TGK and Drought should be up to date on it) I fully expect Conq's teammates to chill knowing that he isn't under threat anyway, and to communicate that to Conq himself.

I don't think that Conq should get a free pass C1, I just think that vote is performative as all hell because it in essence does nothing, and adds nothing to your issues with Conq. And the performativity just seems suspect to me.

And FWIW, I agree with you it's doing more on Conq than Drought insofar as at least I now know what you think about Conq  

13 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I'm decidedly bad at coming up with a break-the-ice topic, so C1 especially I like to wait for someone (like Joe) to do it for me. I'm more than happy to reply and sustain the discussion, but uh, don't expect me to start it that often xD I'm the same way IRL too, I like sustaining conversations but have no clue how to get them going. Sorry if my promptings got annoying, didn't mean to offend any low-posters.

All this seems more tied to my playing philosophy rather than my play, but I suppose I have been more vocal about it so far?

I feel like we are all missing Archer terribly right now 

So, question for you (  ) - how do you expect Elims to approach this game? Do you expect them to play more aggressively to lens denial, or to trying to pocket and claim lenses? 

And for the floor/everyone: Do you think there are any circumstances under which it makes sense to claim/counterclaim, or no? (Instinctive opsec in me says no, but knowing there's two of each lens and a roleblock and action scan out there makes me think that this might not be true. I will also blame the number of extreme Elim liars we've since seen in SE this year, hi Drake  ) I expect claiming to expose people to shatters, so I would say do not at all do it lightly, especially because passing is last on OoA. If there is a good lens claim (unless it's Elim bait - best judgement), anyone with a VS should try to grab it to keep it from being hit by a shatter. (But really can we just not claim.)

[Conquestor]

4 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Conquestor for his vote on Fifth when I thought it was clear that there wasn’t real malicious intent on Fifth’s part, and then also for Con’s quick retraction of said vote.

Hi!  Does Con work as a nickname, or do you have another?

I'm good for any nickname, but it seems like you guys decided on Conq. 

Okay, let me go into how I feel about voting, especially cycle 1. I feel that the first cycle is all about the interactions and what you do and say. This allows players to see how that changes as a game continues. The reason that I voted for Fifth is because I was worried about early band wagoning, since that happened so much in games I was in. It never seemed like a good way to solve problems. Once he answered my questions with some good reasoning, I saw no reason to keep my vote there. So, what is the reason for your vote on me @Matrim's Dice? Do you genuinely wanting me to die this cycle, or something else?

As for the whole idea of causing a tie, I both love and hate the idea. First off, it could reveal relationships and connections between players, on the other hand, someone might see themselves as a vigilante and try to save someone. It really doesn't give as much info as random voting and seeing what that person says. 

Also, like what Mat said, I do appreciate you taking it easy on me, but what's the point of Sanderson Elimination if I don't have to be worried about dying???  Just treat how you would any player and if I die early, I'll just join the next game. Also, this whole talk about meta is new to me. It makes sense though, so I guess I'll be more watchful about that. What is the current meta and what does NAI mean???

I know that this is getting long, but @A Joe in the Bush I also remember that game! I felt so betrayed and then I played my next game and understood perfectly what happened! It very much helped me to have a healthy respect for PMs!!!

As Grischuk took Theo's hand, he noticed that a lot of attention was put on him. "Oh, deary me. What have I done?" Theo whispered, his palms beginning to sweat. He never really did like attention, that's why he worked at a tea shop and not as a lens crafter. He walked to the side and began the watch the crowd carefully. People were beginning to talk strategy and how we should go about finding the librarians. What to do? It was all such a mess.

EDIT:

Also, to count up the votes so far:
Mat = 2

Ash = 1

Conq = 1

Edited July 22, 2022 by Conquestor
New Info

[The Unknown Ajah]

57 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

The point is to gain information and to gain reads. Talking about it ending in a false positive is the assumption that it's meant to lynch an Elim - which no, we don't always LG84 a game, unfortunately. No disagreement on not explicitly verbalising the intent to form a tie, but that's really the result of Joe asking the question rather than an issue with the strategy.

 That is deeply flawed. You can get a false positive on relationships easier than an elim. It doesn’t need to be trying to kill an elim for it to be false positive. Also, it should be trying to kill an elim, causing the tie is just hoping to get two elims instead of one. (Elim and the other elim they protect)

@Conquestor NAI means Not/Non Alignment Indicative.

[Kasimir]

8 minutes ago, Conquestor said:

Also, like what Mat said, I do appreciate you taking it easy on me, but what's the point of Sanderson Elimination if I don't have to be worried about dying???  Just treat how you would any player and if I die early, I'll just join the next game. Also, this whole talk about meta is new to me. It makes sense though, so I guess I'll be more watchful about that. What is the current meta and what does NAI mean???

The amnesty doesn't last too long, but it's generally considered discourteous to exe/lynch a returning or new player in their first cycle, maybe first two. The idea is to let them get their feet back in the game - we've had returning players semi-permanently stop playing as a result of being frustrated with getting exed (especially if they returned to a vastly different meta) on C1, and I think that's about the time the amnesty policy came into play.

How people consider players returning players is a bit of a wash - general consensus is that you, Joe, and TGK are fairly clear-cut as returnees, I'd argue Fifth and Drought basically count, Fifth by the skin of his teeth as he just played one game and has been present as a GM (though his last major activity tranche as a player was last year.) I recall Drought last played either in AG8 or LG83, so again, not as clear-cut, but good enough for me to lay off.

Hard to go too much into the current meta because a lot of it is taken for granted, but if you have a specific point/question, most of us should know. (I say most but Mat and Devo are probably most up to date, JNV might be as they've been fairly active since they started in AG8 thereabouts, same for TUN, Ash and I play intermittently but more regularly than most, and Wiz and Luckspren are technically fairly new.) NAI means 'Non-Alignment Indicative.' Illwei (another player who isn't in this game) has a whole rant about it that I sort of agree with and sort of don't - NAI are stuff like self-pres votes, i.e. stuff you'd reasonably expect a player to produce regardless of their alignment. What counts as NAI and what isn't is kind of subjective - I think Mat is really the best example because a number of players do have an asymmetry between their willingness to stay alive as Villagers and when Evil. With Mat, it's more or less symmetrical, so Mat's willingness to stay alive when subjected to pressure is a good example of something that's NAI

Edited to add:

Just now, The Unknown Novel said:

 That is deeply flawed. You can get a false positive on relationships easier than an elim. It doesn’t need to be trying to kill an elim for it to be false positive. Also, it should be trying to kill an elim, causing the tie is just hoping to get two elims instead of one. (Elim and the other elim they protect)

Perhaps, but the point is to gain more information. You seem to have an implicit standard where it has to be absolutely correct, or it isn't worth it, and by that definition, no lynch is worth it, simpliciter. Discovering you're mistaken about a relationship narrows down your suspect pool. That's a deeply flawed assumption and selective goal-keeping.

No? Causing the tie can flush out Elims too, e.g. if you see low investment or recognise there's no Elim investment in the tie, then you vote off-train. We certainly don't just cause ties between people we think are Villagers, but especially early in the game, believing that we realistically have got an Elim in our sights is more likely to be mere delusion than actually true.

Edited July 22, 2022 by Kasimir

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

Data from ties may or may not be pertinent since fondness for ties and elim desire to protect teammates varies by player, but it is useful to have multiple close options leading up to the end of the cycle.

4 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Conquestor for his vote on Fifth when I thought it was clear that there wasn’t real malicious intent on Fifth’s part, and then also for Con’s quick retraction of said vote.

Why did you think it was clear there wasn't malicious intent? Putting a second vote on Ash indicates a desire on Fifth's part to kill him, which may or may not be malicious depending on his alignment.

3 hours ago, Kasimir said:

But—as with most strategies, it has certain assumptions baked into it to be effective. I think we've tacitly been leaving it at a tie. Unless you're Evil (not enough info to tell, not really interested in chasing that line right now), the fact that no one particularly cared and that the cycle has been so low temperature so far is suggestive of low investment. This could be for several reasons:

A. Elims aren't interested, because one of their own isn't endangered
B. Elims have high risk threshold, therefore are okay with a several-way tie
C. Too early in the cycle
D. Two or more of the above

Against C, I would say the latest trend has been for Elims to push earlier with regard to breaking ties that are bad for them. Fifth's tie-breaking vote would fit that profile, but my question would be how well-versed Fifth would be with that meta. Maybe, he sure heard us yelling about it in AG8, but he's still a returning player, this being his second game back, so that much is unclear to me. I lean towards no - on reflection, a one-vote deep tie isn't a serious threat to the Elims, just get the threatened member on to self-pres. Self-pres votes aren't very alignment-indicative (I don't really want to say NAI because we can insert Illwei's rant here), but also because there are players like Mat who simply don't care to die no matter their alignment.

For B, I'll note this has been true in many recent games, including cases of three-vote deep ties. Sure, Araris isn't playing, and this game has a vastly different playerbase, so maybe, but I'm not certain we have a good estimation of Elim risk appetite right now.

And for the floor/everyone: Do you think there are any circumstances under which it makes sense to claim/counterclaim, or no? (Instinctive opsec in me says no, but knowing there's two of each lens and a roleblock and action scan out there makes me think that this might not be true. I will also blame the number of extreme Elim liars we've since seen in SE this year, hi Drake  )

How is it the latest trend for elims to push early to break ties and also a recent pattern for them to be okay with several-way ties? Maybe this is just me blanking on recent games.

There's 16 possible lenses and at least 14 are guaranteed to be in the game. Tracker's lens observing someone put in a kill or shatter is reason to claim. There's no way to clear anyone so doing so in PMs weighs higher chance of remaining anonymous against the possibility of two mixes in a row before finding the lying elim (as opposed to one potential mix with a thread claim). Roleblocking + no kill maybe not since roleblocking a kill may look the same as the kill hitting someone using Disguiser's or Windstormer's lenses. @Elandera, how will those three methods of surviving a kill appear in the writeup?

[The Unknown Ajah]

37 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

JNV might be as they've been fairly active since they started in AG8 thereabouts, same for TUN

I've been around for about a year longer than JNV btw, I just tend to be pretty forgettable because of my activity level.

40 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Perhaps, but the point is to gain more information. You seem to have an implicit standard where it has to be absolutely correct, or it isn't worth it, and by that definition, no lynch is worth it, simpliciter. Discovering you're mistaken about a relationship narrows down your suspect pool. That's a deeply flawed assumption and selective goal-keeping.

No? Causing the tie can flush out Elims too, e.g. if you see low investment or recognise there's no Elim investment in the tie, then you vote off-train. We certainly don't just cause ties between people we think are Villagers, but especially early in the game, believing that we realistically have got an Elim in our sights is more likely to be mere delusion than actually true.

I think we just go about this differently. I'd rather have less more accurate info than more more inaccurate info.

[Kasimir]

18 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

How is it the latest trend for elims to push early to break ties and also a recent pattern for them to be okay with several-way ties? Maybe this is just me blanking on recent games.

Different Elim profiles do different things. The first was you and Araris telling me about it in AG8 actually  , but I recall us seeing that in the AG as well - as TJ noted that game, the Elims played in a fiercely protective way, with Striker and Aman consistently showing up to interfere mid-cycle or so when Szeth came under fire, rather than waiting for the last minute tiebreak. Araris very happily left a Sart-Mage tie in place in LG80, which is what caused me to initially dismiss Araris as likely Village, and later made me read Mage as Village, though I adjusted my views later with more evidence, as we all do. Little concerted effort in LG84 to break the Elim-village tie, with the only one who did so being Archer himself - that's more a case of being risk-friendly, and willing to accept ties. LG84 is actually just a hot mess other than my paranoiding endlessly about your entire doc, because we did a lot of last minute blitz trains and found Elims every time. Elims in LG83 went explicitly for a divide and conquer strat when we infamously had that three way tie all on Elims when we couldn't decide who to vote on.

No comment on my Kandra LG and LG86 - I feel 86 had a passive style team, and them losing their active thread control player N1 (thanks Alv!) didn't particularly help matters, and Drake is gonna Drake.

I think my ultimate point is that when you try to do vote pattern analysis, you have to be careful with your assumptions about how the Elim team plays and flag them. If you're assuming a team with low risk appetite, then discovering your reads are incorrect should lead you to redo it with the assumption of a higher risk appetite instead.

Edited July 22, 2022 by Kasimir
Edited for formatting

[Mat]

1 hour ago, Kasimir said:

So, question for you (  ) - how do you expect Elims to approach this game? Do you expect them to play more aggressively to lens denial, or to trying to pocket and claim lenses? 

And for the floor/everyone: Do you think there are any circumstances under which it makes sense to claim/counterclaim, or no? (Instinctive opsec in me says no, but knowing there's two of each lens and a roleblock and action scan out there makes me think that this might not be true. I will also blame the number of extreme Elim liars we've since seen in SE this year, hi Drake  ) I expect claiming to expose people to shatters, so I would say do not at all do it lightly, especially because passing is last on OoA. If there is a good lens claim (unless it's Elim bait - best judgement), anyone with a VS should try to grab it to keep it from being hit by a shatter. (But really can we just not claim.)

I think that depends on whether they have the Translator's Lens. Technically there could be more than one copy, but that doesn't make sense to me mechanically or thematically, so I'd bet there's just one- if they have them, they probably care a lot less about PM safety than the average villager. If they don't have them, the playing field is more leveled. Something to possibly keep in mind, but passing lenses is a thing.

Not necessarily two of each lens, just the possibility of that. I'd agree with not counterclaiming being a general rule, unless one pair has been proven and someone claims the other when you have it.

On Conq, I don't really feel like engaging with that anymore- clear to me that it's a playstyle difference so /shrug  I saw something, I engaged, nothing was to be gained from leaving it alone. Even if I don't end there at EoD is caused discussion and brought up a suspicion. Surely you wouldn't be against potentially exeing Conq D3.

(Also, while my survival instinct starts at the same level every game, as a villager it's more flexible. I'm much more open to dying to clear my slot than I was, say, that one game )

56 minutes ago, Conquestor said:

It never seemed like a good way to solve problems. Once he answered my questions with some good reasoning, I saw no reason to keep my vote there. So, what is the reason for your vote on me @Matrim's Dice? Do you genuinely wanting me to die this cycle, or something else?

Also, like what Mat said, I do appreciate you taking it easy on me, but what's the point of Sanderson Elimination if I don't have to be worried about dying???  Just treat how you would any player and if I die early, I'll just join the next game. Also, this whole talk about meta is new to me. It makes sense though, so I guess I'll be more watchful about that. What is the current meta and what does NAI mean???

That makes sense I suppose. I guess I just didn't consider two poke votes a bandwagon, so I saw your vote as opportunistic and your retraction as hasty. I cast the vote because of that, and while I knew I might not end there and that it might not attract any attention from other people in my mind it was better than nothing, for the moment. So, in general, no. I don't want you to die. But yes, you were a genuine read I had.

This kind of paragraph normally reads evil to me but nope just getting pureness from it xD

32 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

Why did you think it was clear there wasn't malicious intent? Putting a second vote on Ash indicates a desire on Fifth's part to kill him, which may or may not be malicious depending on his alignment.

When I join someone poke voting an inactive, I almost never end there. Fifth just said that he sees poke voting as a means, not an end. Poke voting has lost its effectiveness (when used on me) but the hope is that it hasn't for other people

[Kasimir]

15 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

(Also, while my survival instinct starts at the same level every game, as a villager it's more flexible. I'm much more open to dying to clear my slot than I was, say, that one game )

Too late, that one game has permanently defined how everyone thinks you play now :eyes:

15 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

On Conq, I don't really feel like engaging with that anymore- clear to me that it's a playstyle difference so /shrug  I saw something, I engaged, nothing was to be gained from leaving it alone. Even if I don't end there at EoD is caused discussion and brought up a suspicion. Surely you wouldn't be against potentially exeing Conq D3.

Wouldn't be the first time /shrug

No - but I generally think you get more useful reactions when there's some kind of actual threat of death, diluted or otherwise, otherwise it's just performative, which is mainly why I haven't at all bothered voting on anyone in that range, but as you said, could be differing approaches.

15 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

When I join someone poke voting an inactive, I almost never end there. Fifth just said that he sees poke voting as a means, not an end. Poke voting has lost its effectiveness (when used on me) but the hope is that it hasn't for other people

This is why y'all need to get on board with Araris's stab voting :eyes:

Edited to add:

One more question - based on your current state of credences, if you all had an action scan, who would you scan?

Currently, I would look for the <Luckspren, Wiz, TUN, Ash, JNV, Devo> set, probably add Drought or TGK but that's a bit too large, and Drought has last logged in on Tuesday, therefore if this continues, I would not expect to catch a kill coming from Drought. Iffy on Steel - I feel Steel could still put in a kill but also IDK, that's a lot of raw dgaf energy from Steel. @Fifth Scholar He's your bro, what are your thoughts?

Edited July 22, 2022 by Kasimir

[Elandera]

3 hours ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

how will those three methods of surviving a kill appear in the writeup?

All three will appear as "attacked but survived"