Jump to content

Mid-Range Game 59: Alcatraz vs the Lens Destructors


Elandera

Recommended Posts

So, we haven't really been able to figure out much so far, and have mostly been discussing meta things. If we're going to talk about votes and how great they are on getting information, Why are there so few votes? Apparently my fear yesterday of band wagoning was absolutely off base because right now we have a four way tie. I don't want Mat to die since he's been helpful, at least discussion wise, for the village. That currently doesn't leave very many options. The that make the most sense to me are Ash and Wandering Wizard.

The reason for Ash is because he was on 7 hours ago and still hasn't said anything in thread, meaning he could have put in an attack action or anything else, after realizing that he was pretty much safe. Of course, he also could've logged in for a second just for a quick check in between his busy times.

The reason for Wizard is because he immediately threw out a vote and then never did anything. (Again, could be because he has just been busy, however he was last on 30 minutes ago.) I feel like he has been flying under the radar for too long. @The Wandering Wizard

Theo was still feeling some anxiety about being watched by so many people. He took another look at the crowd, however and noticed someone who seemed to be watching from the shadows. Alfonzo Smedry. Theo heard about how he had said some things early on with Phil Philson, but ever since, hasn't done anything. "Alfonzo Smedry! Your supposed to help lead us, since you are a Smedry. Where have all of you gone when the Free Kingdom needs you most right now?!" Theo yelled in the middle of the Archive. Theo didn't like attention, but right now, the Free Kingdoms needed him. "Stop hiding in the shadows!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alfonso Smedrey walks out covered in cat hair. "I've been busy trying to get rid of cat hair from this document. Usefull for annoying Librarians. Not usefull for when I'm trying to find the history of the shattered lens."

 

I've just been busy and still cautious as this is only my third game. Mat

@Conquestor

Edited by The Wandering Wizard
Forgot to tag conquestor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we do need to kill someone, and so far none of the Exe targets have been particularly responsive save Matrim, who is no longer under threat. :P I would eventually like @Kasimir to explain why he went onto Luckspren and not back onto Ash, but I’m not gonna vote him for it (especially since he probably won’t be back). Overall I have no problem leaving my vote on Ash, especially if he has been on the Shard, and if the Exe develops elsewhere I’ll look at reasons to switch. Nobody has really been pinging my gut so far except Kas and Mat (very lightly), which is weird, so I don’t know if people should say more or if I’m just not paying as close attention to things as I ought >>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

I don’t know if people should say more or if I’m just not paying as close attention to things as I ought >>

Kas has actually been pinging me too, which I’ve found super weird since 99.9% of the time my brain sees a Kas post and just thinks village :P I didn’t bring it up earlier since it didn’t seem to be the right time when I was under questioning.

Conquestor. I’ll figure somewhere else to be, and it probably won’t be Kas. I’m not miskilling v!Kas D1 with this little info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the VC is

  • Ashbringer (1): Fifth Scholar
  • Luckspren (1): Kasimir
  • The Wandering Wizard (1): Conquestor
  • Droughtbringer (1): A Joe in the Bush

Which is... interesting, I guess. Of those options two are completely inactive which strikes me as strange since I don't recall anyone actually advocating for a real CC today. I wouldn't be surprised if Fifth moved. I'll hold onto my vote, I'd initially planned to add to one of the trains but that was before I realized what they were. I do want to check to see how well Kas' voting patterns today line up with the philosophies he's put forth (like whether I'd have expected him to go back to Ash, or whether making a tie when he did makes sense for him. Fifth's question was good.) I'm not sure if him going onto Luckspren after being against a CC so openly is indicative of anything since it's not like there's very many options right now :P

Steel strikes me as odd though, for posting twice but effectively not at all. I'm trying to get over my dislike of opening with rules analysis and then nothing afterwards but right now TGK is on my radar for that as well.

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

3 hours ago, The Wandering Wizard said:

Alfonso Smedrey walks out covered in cat hair. "I've been busy trying to get rid of cat hair from this document. Usefull for annoying Librarians. Not usefull for when I'm trying to find the history of the shattered lens."

 

I've just been busy and still cautious as this is only my third game. Mat

@Conquestor

Well, good to know, but if you had the chance. I would like to hear what you think about the current situation. @The Wandering Wizard. Wandering Wizard I feel like I have some ideas about people, but nothing officially. It seems a little too quiet for my taste. I thought for sure more people would be coming out of the wood works, but no. I also thought that more votes would be happening, but we are at the same count for a four way tie. That leaves a 25% chance that any one of these people die. We could leave it like this and go with the whole last minute tie breaking to see what happens, but none of the people on trial have voted, leaving it very much up in the air. I'd rather kill someone that's not participating this early on than someone who is not, especially if it is going to be this slow anyways. I'll cast my vote on Ashbringer, since I don't know if I'll be on again before the cycle closes. 

Alfonso came out covered in cat hair (How did a document get covered in cat hair to begin with?) and responded to Theo. Something felt wrong. People were being too quiet, which is saying something since Theo liked his quiet time. Why was everyone walking on eggshells??? "We are people of the Free Kingdoms!" Theo yelled once again to the room of people. "Are we just going to stop and let the Librarians take us over like everyone else or are we going to fight back?!" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Conquestor said:

How did a document get covered in cat hair to begin with?

Alfonzo's Smedrey talent. I was trying to find something strange like the rest of the talents, but seemingly useless.

 

"No, I won't." Whispers Alfonzo. "No, I won't" Alfonzo repeats louder. Alfonzo brushes the cat hair off using a specialized brush so he doesn't touch the document. "I must be off." Alfonzo leaves for the inner piles of archive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ashbringer said:

I need to follow threads more :ph34r:

I could be wrong, but I'm 90% sure the other two times you said that you were elim :P 

I mean you could have said it more than twice before for all I know but that's my memory xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 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.

This feels wobbly for some reason its lkie you say 'I thought' leaving room open for them tothink otherwise but then not considering that other opinion plus you could have askedi nstead of voted it feels strong for no reason like overstating 

21 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?

The thing about the tie setup is its the sorta thing to lose effectiveness if you bring it up cause knowledge of the thought will mess with the data 

19 hours ago, The Unknown Novel said:

That tends to lead false positives, and it has high chance of false negative as well. 

I think what youre trying to say is it has a big chance of being wrong which is true true true but is it better then voting someone actually at random though thats what you compare to thats baseline plus youre just a blackbox all the time you do things and I dont know why and the easiest way to look in a black box from the outside is to smash it so just like talk me through whats in your head and you wont get cced so much 

17 hours ago, Kasimir said:

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

This is true but I think whats different about this tie is theres like one vote on each guy and its been like that and itll continue to be like that like if I were in that tie I woudlnt even care evil or not its not even about 'oh Im ok with the tie' its more like none of the votes here feel like they matter its all fluff and nonsense and wobbles and it doesnt feel threatening in any way

Quick thing not attahced to quote what is your working definition of a contribution crusade mines when theres an active movement to vote out an inactive purely fro inactivity no other reason so this doesnt include poke voting or voting an inactive for any othe reason which is kinda why Matrims talk about the CC is kinda ringing odd for me at least like given my working definiton its practically always bad 

16 hours 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.

What exactly do you mean by falsep ostiive do you mean you often get villagers who are implicated by breakin gties yeah sure it does its not a first last and only metric its just something to keep in mind moving forward 'hey this person actively cares if this other person dies' its a data collection technique and yeah its better when the tie is a bit more organic in nature or at least the trains are and then you tie it at that and seee where it goes the problem is right now its just like one or two votes a guy no one feels threatened about one or two votes

16 hours 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.

Why do you feel the neeed to demand reasoning with votes attached why cant you just ask if youre voting someone solely as a way to add oomph to your question which will be removed upon satisfaction its about as useful as a poke vote its like a trick knife at that point nots harp at all

15 hours ago, Kasimir said:

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 :P ) 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 mean if you catch an elim or if youre already in touch with the requisite two thats a pretty good reason to bring it forward but yeah keep things on the downlow

15 hours ago, 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)

I mean what are the downsides of leaving the tie as is in comparison to making it definitely one guy or orchestrating a tie when theres no preference unless its a game where ties kill no one plus maybe its not directly leading to killing an elim b ut its like that box chain puzzle it links things together

14 hours ago, The Unknown Novel said:

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

Did you typo here or are you actually implying youd rather have less information 

14 hours ago, Kasimir said:

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

Any of the people curently floating by without having too much attention while still being present

5 hours ago, The Wandering Wizard said:

I've just been busy and still cautious as this is only my third game. Mat

Why are you unvoting also throw caution to the wind be bold make mistakes learn from them

3 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I'm not sure if him going onto Luckspren after being against a CC so openly is indicative of anything since it's not like there's very many options right now :P

I mean Luckspren was on intiially then never showed up again vs Ashbringer who hadnt shown up at all at the time

None of the people currently stuck in the vote are people I want dead or find suspicious in a significant capacity beyond normal levels from Matrim and The Unknown Novel who I always finkd a bit wobbly on all levels so Ill hold off throw a vote in if something happens that I dont want it to but honestly this post wasnt very productive just a bit of questions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said:

I would eventually like @Kasimir to explain why he went onto Luckspren and not back onto Ash, but I’m not gonna vote him for it (especially since he probably won’t be back).

Gods were kind and I woke up despite setting no alarms, so you can always pursue this line of questioning in red if it makes you feel better.

Why should I go onto Ash? Why are you interested in defending Luckspren? Is Luckspren particularly under significant threat at the moment?

4 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I'm not sure if him going onto Luckspren after being against a CC so openly is indicative of anything since it's not like there's very many options right now :P

I've flagged this before, but you go walking back into it again. I've pointed this out in games this year, consistently, including in the LG that just happened (yes, I still have the PM, do you?), and still you continue to assume that naked vote = CC. At some point, I am really going to have to suspect you are doing this deliberately and that there is agenda behind this :P

1 hour ago, JNV said:

This is true but I think whats different about this tie is theres like one vote on each guy and its been like that and itll continue to be like that like if I were in that tie I woudlnt even care evil or not its not even about 'oh Im ok with the tie' its more like none of the votes here feel like they matter its all fluff and nonsense and wobbles and it doesnt feel threatening in any way

I wouldn't disagree with that tie feeling rather toothless regardless of alignment due to the easy availability of a tie-breaking self-pres vote, which is far less informative than practically any other vote.

1 hour ago, JNV said:

Why do you feel the neeed to demand reasoning with votes attached why cant you just ask if youre voting someone solely as a way to add oomph to your question which will be removed upon satisfaction its about as useful as a poke vote its like a trick knife at that point nots harp at all

Which is incidentally why I may ask questions with my votes but don't always immediately remove the vote :P I do think Araris was on to something with stab voting. Fairly certain I've said this during the clash with Bort in LG84, and it's going to become part of my response to you very shortly. And FWIW, I think Fifth was doing stab voting wrong in LG87, but he also had agenda, so I'm going to sort of let him off on that front.

1 hour ago, JNV said:

Did you typo here or are you actually implying youd rather have less information 

I believe he's making a statement that he'd rather set his epistemic standards high, and by doing so, discount a lot of info but ensure that what he does keep is very high accuracy, rather than lower his standards, and accept more info, but by necessity, of lower accuracy, so fundamentally, yes.

It's an approach, let's put it that way.

1 hour ago, JNV said:

I mean Luckspren was on intiially then never showed up again vs Ashbringer who hadnt shown up at all at the time

Interesting.

1 hour ago, JNV said:

Quick thing not attahced to quote what is your working definition of a contribution crusade mines when theres an active movement to vote out an inactive purely fro inactivity no other reason so this doesnt include poke voting or voting an inactive for any othe reason which is kinda why Matrims talk about the CC is kinda ringing odd for me at least like given my working definiton its practically always bad 

So, the Contribution Crusade was born during a period of low activity in SE. My memory says AG1 or AG2, but a quick check shows other things happened there, and STINK and I argue about the CC in AG2 so it's already a thing by then. Either way, in which Hreo decided he would essentially vote to kill inactives as a way of: A. actually getting rid of inactives, and B. incentivising activity. Part of the reason was the suspicion that Elims were lurking in low activity brackets, and also just a significant amount of frustration that low activity players were costing the Village badly in games. (Part of this is a simple playbook - Elims kill most of the high activity players, and then the low activity + inactive brackets just can't solve the game and die in turn.) It's important to keep in mind inactivity filters weren't so much of a thing back then, although there were pinch-hitters.

To me, there are two types of CC programmes. Strong CC is that we should lynch inactives and get rid of them. Weak CC is the poke voting meta that (in my view) got strengthened by CC, where players could poke vote - leave a vote on an inactive and peace out, or simply swap their vote to another inactive the second the person they voted on posted.

There are a lot of problems with the strong CC model:

A. Genuine inactives don't care
B. This doesn't generate very much information 
C. It allows the Elims to blend in by appearing 'helpful' (if CC is defined as pro-Village) without putting them under substantive pressure - basically it greatly lowers the bar for what it takes for anyone to count as Village
D. It doesn't really encourage quality activity or engagement with the game, just the semblance of it

I wouldn't say CC is almost always bad. If it's clear you're dealing with a passive or low activity Elim team, then you do have to take shots in the dark, so as to speak. (Sart's LG71 comes to mind, when we were dealing with an exceptionally quiet Elim team.) The point of criticising CC isn't to say killing inactives or borderline inactives never works, because that's a really bad argument since sometimes that's where the Elims are. The point of criticising CC is to say that CC doesn't actually fulfill its stated goals - if it did, inactivity filters would mean we have highly active games, and that's really obviously false! Moreover, CC basically makes the game landscape worse for the Village. So an actual lynch on an inactive and strong CC shouldn't be conflated. (I would also argue that's not really strong CC anymore since you come to it by having ruled out all/most other possibilities - it's just bad practice to start a game by going there, since Village already starts with an informational disadvantage. Refusing to lynch low activity players when you've cleared pretty much everyone high-activity results in Village self-cannibalism, and a potential loss.)

The problem with the weak CC model, or the diluted poke vote model, is essentially why I'm an advocate of Araris's stab voting and have been since...oh, I think that game where he told Ventyl he wasn't trying to get Ventyl to post, just to kill him.

A. It creates a very clear contract - post anything and I will remove my vote. This doesn't incentive players to post anything alignment indicative and greatly lowers the bar for what it takes for any player to feel safe from the lynch.
B. It allows the Elims to blend in by appearing 'helpful' (if CC is defined as pro-Village) without putting them under substantive pressure - basically it greatly lowers the bar for what it takes for anyone to count as Village.
C. It doesn't really encourage quality activity or engagement with the game, just the semblance of it. This happened when Bort just poke voted Tani, Tani showed up, and no one got anything much out of that in LG84.
D. It doesn't generate very much information - if I poke-vote Lopen, and Lopen posts "hi, sorry I can't get into the game," and maybe adds a single comment on the gamestate and I unvote him and move to the next inactive, that's extremely poor contribution and the Village doesn't benefit from it.

Note that if I were actually doing a CC vote, I wouldn't have voted Luckspren or Mat to begin with since they had posts, and there are genuine inactives (well, now just one I think) in this game. This is why it really frustrates me every single time Mat sees a naked vote, and decides it has to be a CC vote, as sure as Vegemite goes with bread :P 

To rehash my views on stab voting as opposed to poke voting, though Araris and I both said a substantial amount of it in thread and I did in my faction doc that game (LG84) - I strongly feel that stab voting breaks the expectancy trap, and that's what Fifth was doing wrong in LG87. The point of stab voting is that the other player can't reliably predict what is going to make you take your vote off. This is why stab voting encourages pressure. If there's the implicit understanding that addressing your question or answering your argument is going to immediately make you move off, then the player (especially if Evil) knows that all they've got to do is to immediately answer, and the vote goes off. They don't feel any psychological pressure. Conversely (as Fifth was signalling in that LG), if your vote is explicitly signalled as staying put for the entire cycle anyway, then there's no pressure either (probably a bit more than poke-voting, since someone can double up), since the player already knows that nothing is going to get that vote to come off anyway.

The point of voting is to apply pressure via threat of death. Votes that go on players who are not functionally excluded from death for that cycle exert more pressure if they're on substantial trains, less pressure but still pressure if they're train starters. 

If I could summarise stab voting in a single line, which Araris is probably better at, it's this: "Unvote because your vote is better off elsewhere." Predictably leaving your vote on a player to the end of the cycle, especially when you have better places to apply pressure violates this rule. So does immediately unvoting just because the player you voted dropped a thin post. The trick, of course, is determining where your vote is better off, if at all, but that's a player judgement call.

So this is a lot of random voting theory but I guess that's good SE tradition. 

Edited by Kasimir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man there have been some crazy long posts and I appreciate the passion going into the discussion. I see this discussion as important meta discussion but I don’t think it adds any immediate information to this game. Some might disagree and I’d gladly discuss my lack of Sherlock level deduction skills :P. For this cycle, I will continue to hold my vote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Elandera said:

This is your thirty-minute warning! Votes and actions submitted after the thread locks will be ignored. Though, good luck getting a vote in after the thread locks...

I think you needed to @ Devo here :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

If I could summarise stab voting in a single line, which Araris is probably better at, it's this: "Unvote because your vote is better off elsewhere." Predictably leaving your vote on a player to the end of the cycle, especially when you have better places to apply pressure violates this rule. So does immediately unvoting just because the player you voted dropped a thin post. The trick, of course, is determining where your vote is better off, if at all, but that's a player judgement call.

So in essence ones own standards for changing the vote should be obscure and black box style uncertainty to others but perfectly clear to the self so people feel like they have to prove themselves but cant just push a button to get off scot free sorta thing and voting inactives just to vote inactives is less good and having clear easily met standards is less good and the only way to make people feel threatened is to be unpredictabale is that basically it

14 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Interesting.

Interesting how the single word sentence is kinda intimidating Ill be honest 

@Ashbringer you might want to vote so you dont die 

Now some quick RP trying to figure out why an OSHA person is in a place not america

 

Cori retreated to a private corner in the archive, hiding behind stacks of books to compile their notes. Most of the conversation was frivolous and fun, a meeting of minds rather than a professional interrogation. They did not have true governmental authority in this land, so they did not feel comfortable controlling the conversation. Besides, establishing trust was better than control from the quick for information gathering. They had fled the Hushlands after the Librarians conquered it, not for their own safety, but because their services were no longer required. Despite their Evil, the Librarians were remarkably skilled at following health and safety protocol. The good of OSHA was needed elsewhere, and if they ever wanted to know of the technology the librarians were suppressing, they would need to usurp their power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Gods were kind and I woke up despite setting no alarms, so you can always pursue this line of questioning in red if it makes you feel better.

Why should I go onto Ash? Why are you interested in defending Luckspren? Is Luckspren particularly under significant threat at the moment?

I've flagged this before, but you go walking back into it again. I've pointed this out in games this year, consistently, including in the LG that just happened (yes, I still have the PM, do you?), and still you continue to assume that naked vote = CC. At some point, I am really going to have to suspect you are doing this deliberately and that there is agenda behind this :P

I wouldn't disagree with that tie feeling rather toothless regardless of alignment due to the easy availability of a tie-breaking self-pres vote, which is far less informative than practically any other vote.

Which is incidentally why I may ask questions with my votes but don't always immediately remove the vote :P I do think Araris was on to something with stab voting. Fairly certain I've said this during the clash with Bort in LG84, and it's going to become part of my response to you very shortly. And FWIW, I think Fifth was doing stab voting wrong in LG87, but he also had agenda, so I'm going to sort of let him off on that front.

I believe he's making a statement that he'd rather set his epistemic standards high, and by doing so, discount a lot of info but ensure that what he does keep is very high accuracy, rather than lower his standards, and accept more info, but by necessity, of lower accuracy, so fundamentally, yes.

It's an approach, let's put it that way.

Interesting.

So, the Contribution Crusade was born during a period of low activity in SE. My memory says AG1 or AG2, but a quick check shows other things happened there, and STINK and I argue about the CC in AG2 so it's already a thing by then. Either way, in which Hreo decided he would essentially vote to kill inactives as a way of: A. actually getting rid of inactives, and B. incentivising activity. Part of the reason was the suspicion that Elims were lurking in low activity brackets, and also just a significant amount of frustration that low activity players were costing the Village badly in games. (Part of this is a simple playbook - Elims kill most of the high activity players, and then the low activity + inactive brackets just can't solve the game and die in turn.) It's important to keep in mind inactivity filters weren't so much of a thing back then, although there were pinch-hitters.

To me, there are two types of CC programmes. Strong CC is that we should lynch inactives and get rid of them. Weak CC is the poke voting meta that (in my view) got strengthened by CC, where players could poke vote - leave a vote on an inactive and peace out, or simply swap their vote to another inactive the second the person they voted on posted.

There are a lot of problems with the strong CC model:

A. Genuine inactives don't care
B. This doesn't generate very much information 
C. It allows the Elims to blend in by appearing 'helpful' (if CC is defined as pro-Village) without putting them under substantive pressure - basically it greatly lowers the bar for what it takes for anyone to count as Village
D. It doesn't really encourage quality activity or engagement with the game, just the semblance of it

I wouldn't say CC is almost always bad. If it's clear you're dealing with a passive or low activity Elim team, then you do have to take shots in the dark, so as to speak. (Sart's LG71 comes to mind, when we were dealing with an exceptionally quiet Elim team.) The point of criticising CC isn't to say killing inactives or borderline inactives never works, because that's a really bad argument since sometimes that's where the Elims are. The point of criticising CC is to say that CC doesn't actually fulfill its stated goals - if it did, inactivity filters would mean we have highly active games, and that's really obviously false! Moreover, CC basically makes the game landscape worse for the Village. So an actual lynch on an inactive and strong CC shouldn't be conflated. (I would also argue that's not really strong CC anymore since you come to it by having ruled out all/most other possibilities - it's just bad practice to start a game by going there, since Village already starts with an informational disadvantage. Refusing to lynch low activity players when you've cleared pretty much everyone high-activity results in Village self-cannibalism, and a potential loss.)

The problem with the weak CC model, or the diluted poke vote model, is essentially why I'm an advocate of Araris's stab voting and have been since...oh, I think that game where he told Ventyl he wasn't trying to get Ventyl to post, just to kill him.

A. It creates a very clear contract - post anything and I will remove my vote. This doesn't incentive players to post anything alignment indicative and greatly lowers the bar for what it takes for any player to feel safe from the lynch.
B. It allows the Elims to blend in by appearing 'helpful' (if CC is defined as pro-Village) without putting them under substantive pressure - basically it greatly lowers the bar for what it takes for anyone to count as Village.
C. It doesn't really encourage quality activity or engagement with the game, just the semblance of it. This happened when Bort just poke voted Tani, Tani showed up, and no one got anything much out of that in LG84.
D. It doesn't generate very much information - if I poke-vote Lopen, and Lopen posts "hi, sorry I can't get into the game," and maybe adds a single comment on the gamestate and I unvote him and move to the next inactive, that's extremely poor contribution and the Village doesn't benefit from it.

Note that if I were actually doing a CC vote, I wouldn't have voted Luckspren or Mat to begin with since they had posts, and there are genuine inactives (well, now just one I think) in this game. This is why it really frustrates me every single time Mat sees a naked vote, and decides it has to be a CC vote, as sure as Vegemite goes with bread :P 

To rehash my views on stab voting as opposed to poke voting, though Araris and I both said a substantial amount of it in thread and I did in my faction doc that game (LG84) - I strongly feel that stab voting breaks the expectancy trap, and that's what Fifth was doing wrong in LG87. The point of stab voting is that the other player can't reliably predict what is going to make you take your vote off. This is why stab voting encourages pressure. If there's the implicit understanding that addressing your question or answering your argument is going to immediately make you move off, then the player (especially if Evil) knows that all they've got to do is to immediately answer, and the vote goes off. They don't feel any psychological pressure. Conversely (as Fifth was signalling in that LG), if your vote is explicitly signalled as staying put for the entire cycle anyway, then there's no pressure either (probably a bit more than poke-voting, since someone can double up), since the player already knows that nothing is going to get that vote to come off anyway.

The point of voting is to apply pressure via threat of death. Votes that go on players who are not functionally excluded from death for that cycle exert more pressure if they're on substantial trains, less pressure but still pressure if they're train starters. 

If I could summarise stab voting in a single line, which Araris is probably better at, it's this: "Unvote because your vote is better off elsewhere." Predictably leaving your vote on a player to the end of the cycle, especially when you have better places to apply pressure violates this rule. So does immediately unvoting just because the player you voted dropped a thin post. The trick, of course, is determining where your vote is better off, if at all, but that's a player judgement call.

So this is a lot of random voting theory but I guess that's good SE tradition. 

This is long and I’ll get back to you when I can actually afford to write an essay but I am happy with my vote on Ash. His posts haven’t given me any reason to move off him, even within the parameters you define. Happy to kill Ash, unless he produces a very good post in the next 5 minutes :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luckspren had posted once and is currently viewing the thread, as opposed to Droughtbringer who's fulfilling his character's talent by not being around when needed. Kas mentioned not wanting to kill Drought as a returnee. Or new players, but third game for Luck may or may not count as new. If it does, voting Luck over Ash is interesting, especially since Ash first posted after Kas's vote. Ashbringer's also showed up and neither voted on him has shifted, which makes me think Fifth and Conq actually want him dead and aren't evil with him. No strong defenses of Ash except for Kas and JNV not wanting to vote for him, but in a three elim game that could be the entire team and there's no way to know until they're dead.

Mat had a couple people vote on him and then retract, which is always notable. Kind of makes me want to vote for him to see if anyone tries to push against that, though the time for that is not less than half an hour before rollover. Oh well. And I was wrong about him in QF 61 so I'm miscalibrated somehow.

And now another defense of Ash from JNV. Let's go Ashbringer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JNV said:

What exactly do you mean by falsep ostiive do you mean you often get villagers who are implicated by breakin gties yeah sure it does its not a first last and only metric its just something to keep in mind moving forward 'hey this person actively cares if this other person dies' its a data collection technique and yeah its better when the tie is a bit more organic in nature or at least the trains are and then you tie it at that and seee where it goes the problem is right now its just like one or two votes a guy no one feels threatened about one or two votes

False positive as in a villager breaking a tie and saving an elim, yes. People feel threatened by two votes when the largest train is two votes :P.

1 hour ago, JNV said:

Why do you feel the neeed to demand reasoning with votes attached why cant you just ask if youre voting someone solely as a way to add oomph to your question which will be removed upon satisfaction its about as useful as a poke vote its like a trick knife at that point nots harp at all

Where did you get that I was demanding reasoning with votes attached from that paragraph? The part you quoted was me explaining my vote on Conq further. I'd argue that attaching it onto a question counts as reasoning.

30 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Why should I go onto Ash? Why are you interested in defending Luckspren? Is Luckspren particularly under significant threat at the moment?

You didn't answer the question-- and Fifth wasn't defending Luckspren, he was asking you a question. Why should you go onto Luckspren? Is there a difference? At the time of your vote, you put Luckspren in exactly the same threat level as Ash.

31 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

I've flagged this before, but you go walking back into it again. I've pointed this out in games this year, consistently, including in the LG that just happened (yes, I still have the PM, do you?), and still you continue to assume that naked vote = CC. At some point, I am really going to have to suspect you are doing this deliberately and that there is agenda behind this :P

I think our definitions of CC are different. For me, a poke vote on an inactive is a 'CC'. For me, any vote on an inactive is a 'CC'. I don't see a CC as exclusively voting to kill someone because they're inactive, so when I look at your Luckspren vote that's what I see.

I get that wasn't the original definition of the term but that's how I read it :P. If your Luckspren vote was intended to draw them out of the shadows, then I'd call that a CC and you probably wouldn't, but is that even why you cast the vote?

The more I think about it, the more I'm realizing I do consider 'naked vote on a low/inactive' and 'CC' to have the same definitions.

13 minutes ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

And now another defense of Ash from JNV. Let's go Ashbringer.

 I like this vote, regardless of Ash's alignment. He's a good kill.

I want to vote Kas but I won't.

Ashbringer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adelaide stood up. "Attention, people. I wish to state that I am alive, present, and paying attention, and that is all the information Kased's accusation will get out of me. I realize that I'm proving his point, and I'm all right with that. I don't understand why suspicion is being cast on Ashbringer, but I have no evidence against it and will refrain from contributing."

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...