Rathmaskal Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 Hmmm, I guess I've seen several games with the disclaimer 'not all roles are guaranteed to be included in the game' so made the assumption that all roles would be included in this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrikerEZ Posted June 10, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 53 minutes ago, MrakeDarshall said: Do hazekillers know how many charges they have left at any given time? They will be informed of how many they have left after attempting to use one. So, if they successfully use a charge on D1, on N1 they will be informed that they only have 2 charges left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aonar Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) Oh no. Oh no oh no oh no. It's my first day for Harmony's sake. I'm not ready for this. The Chief's office was a bit too small for everyone, so he ended up standing just outside the door, but he still had a good view of the proceedings. Someone was already dead? Officers were trying to kill other officers? Leaning against the wall, it took Ainm a moment to realize he was hyperventilating. Come on man, get a hold of yourself. Breathe in, breathe out. In the brief pause as Ainm tried and failed to calm down, arguments and hushed discussion broke out in the rather cramped room. Accusations flew, although none had any real heat to them, yet. A few, he noticed, even mentioned his name. Oh rust. I'm going to die. Alright, first things first, I'd like to accuse Aman of money laundering. No one has that many Villager Bucks(TM) to give away. In other news, joining this game was a horrible idea. Whatever. Most points I would like to make have been covered by others; assuming role madness is a bad assumption; I would guess one of each, although not with high confidence (perhaps 65%?). If anything has been dropped, it was probably the coinshot (or perhaps the Mistborn), as the Kandra likely has a kill and hypothetical four kills a cycle (lynch, Kandra, Coinshot, Elim) will tear through the players in no time. (Likewise, if anything was doubled up, it was probably protective, IE lurcher/thug/smoker/hazekiller (although Hazekiller seems unlikely).) Likewise; although in an ideal situation a village Thug would not choose to protect themselves from the lynch, I would not bank on a hypothetical Thug actually following through. /shurg Maybe I'll be proven wrong on that though, we'll see. Regardless, best policy will be to double-tap anyone who survives a lynch. If there was any other comment-worthy discussion this cycle, I missed it, and wouldn't mind having it pointed out. I am hoping to be more active this game than I was the last couple I tried to play, but I can't 100% promise, sorry. Edited June 10, 2019 by Aonar 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) So I'm trying to force myself to keep active until I die, and a part of that is keeping track of post counts for each player each turn. So far @Lumgol only has one, while @Araris Valerian, @Sart, @Walin, @Aonar, @Straw, and @xinoehp512 have yet to post once. If you don't meet your 2 post quota soon, you can expect more posts of me tagging you just as a friendly warning. Also, vote count! (1) Walin: Ark1002, (1) Fifth Scholar: Furamirionind, (1) Ark1002: Ventyl, (1) Devotary of Spontaneity: Fifth Scholar, And... basically nothing has changed, other than Mrake's unvote on me and his vote/unvote on Rath. So, unpopular opinion, buttt... Considering that lynches aren't mandatory, I wouldn't be opposed to skipping the lynch today, if I'm honest. This stage in the game I always prefer removing inactives, but with the inactivity filter in place, it's probably not necessary for the endstate of the game. Note: when I say skipping the lynch, I mostly mean finishing it. People should be voting and analyzing even when we have little to no info. ALSO YAY AONAR POSTED ED1T: Starting another count for my chart. This time it's going to be people who use the emoji. So far Aonar is in the lead with 4! And all in one post, no less! Edited June 10, 2019 by Amanuensis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xinoehp512 Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 Hello everyone. I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Amanuensis said: ... ALSO YAY AONAR POSTED ED1T: Starting another count for my chart. This time it's going to be people who use the emoji. So far Aonar is in the lead with 4! And all in one post, no less! Okay so, actual count. (5) Amanuensis (6 if you count this post) (4) Aonar (all in one post!) (3) Fifth Scholar (glad to see another chronic emoji abuser) (2) _Stick_ (surprised this is so low with her post count tbh) (1) Lumgol (so far she's got 1 per post! Keep it up Lum!) (1) StrikerEZ (doesn't really count since he's the GM, but honorable mention) 6 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said: Hello everyone. I think. You think? Personally I don't think this post is enough to qualify for activity, but glad to know you're alive. Got any thoughts on the game? Edited June 10, 2019 by Amanuensis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aonar Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Amanuensis said: Starting another count for my chart. This time it's going to be people who use the emoji. So far Aonar is in the lead with 4! And all in one post, no less! You can never use too many emoji. Edited June 11, 2019 by Aonar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furamirionind Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 Sorry Fifth, I am getting a village read from your posts, yet keep forgetting to remove my vote. 27 minutes ago, Amanuensis said: Note: when I say skipping the lynch, I mostly mean finishing it. People should be voting and analyzing even when we have little to no info. I still don't really understand. Are you suggesting a no-lynch, or suggesting that we vote and discuss lynching as early as possible? I would like to hear some more from Sart. I am trying not to spend do much time on SE over this week. Afterwards, my health will be better, and I will hopefully have figured out my summer schedule better, so I will be a bit more active here. (I say this knowing my activity probably won't change much either way) Fifth Sart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mailliw73 Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 8 minutes ago, Amanuensis said: Okay so, actual count. (5) Amanuensis (6 if you count this post) (4) Aonar (all in one post!) (3) Fifth Scholar (glad to see another chronic emoji abuser) (2) _Stick_ (surprised this is so low with her post count tbh) (1) Lumgol (so far she's got 1 per post! Keep it up Lum!) (1) StrikerEZ (doesn't really count since he's the GM, but honorable mention) You think? Personally I don't think this post is enough to qualify for activity, but glad to know you're alive. Got any thoughts on the game? It's a good thing I'm not playing, as I abuse the emoji way too often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furamirionind Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) Mistborn alert! edit: This is a joke/reference to the previous game where Joe asked some people to post an emoji in the thread if they were a Mistborn. Edited June 10, 2019 by Furamirionind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Aonar said: You can never use too many emoji. I am amazed at how thoroughly that quote box was messed up. I'm guessing you're on your phone 5 minutes ago, Furamirionind said: Sorry Fifth, I am getting a village read from your posts, yet keep forgetting to remove my vote. I still don't really understand. Are you suggesting a no-lynch, or suggesting that we vote and discuss lynching as early as possible? I would like to hear some more from Sart. I am trying not to spend do much time on SE over this week. Afterwards, my health will be better, and I will hopefully have figured out my summer schedule better, so I will be a bit more active here. (I say this knowing my activity probably won't change much either way) FifthSart I would rather give everyone a free turn to get into the swing of things, personally, but I'm on the more left wing / liberal side of the lynching political parties and I know a lot of people don't see eye to eye. The Catch 22 is that we need votes and pressure from them to get the ball rolling, D1 included. So what I'm saying is if people have a genuine reason to vote, do it and don't hold back. We can figure out the rest from there. Otherwise I would rather not shoot in the dark and risk friendly fire. 5 minutes ago, Mailliw73 said: It's a good thing I'm not playing, as I abuse the emoji way too often. Don't worry, you're now an honorable mention as well ED1T: (1) Walin: Ark1002, (1) Ark1002: Ventyl, (1) Devotary of Spontaneity: Fifth Scholar, (1) Sart: Furamirionind, Edited June 10, 2019 by Amanuensis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furamirionind Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 1 minute ago, Amanuensis said: I would rather give everyone a free turn to get into the swing of things, personally, but I'm on the more left wing / liberal side of the lynching political parties and I know a lot of people don't see eye to eye. The Catch 22 is that we need votes and pressure from them to get the ball rolling, D1 included. So what I'm saying is if people have a genuine reason to vote, do it and don't hold back. We can figure out the rest from there. Otherwise I would rather not shoot in the dark and risk friendly fire. My only issue with this, is... Can I talk about MR35's D1? it's still ongoing, so idk how much I am allowed to talk about it... Basically there was no lynch D1 there as well, and there were a lot of complaints about the lack of lynch D2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Furamirionind said: My only issue with this, is... Can I talk about MR35's D1? it's still ongoing, so idk how much I am allowed to talk about it... Basically there was no lynch D1 there as well, and there were a lot of complaints about the lack of lynch D2. Probably best to avoid talking about ongoing games, yeah. There's been lot of examples in the past though. I think the biggest issues with no D1 lynch is that it makes D2 essentially a D1 lynch since there's not much info after N1. But I usually run my games without a D1 lynch anyway, and I don't think it throws balance out of whack. I'd rather give every player some leeway cause A: Villagers get more time to prove their Villagers and B: Eliminators get more time to leave unintentional clues. And honestly, every time I've seen a D1 lynch land on an elim it ends up being a problem itself. Very hard to tell if it's sheer luck, a bus, or what. And they almost never leave anything useful to analyze behind. But then again, I'm also the type of eliminator who avoids killing actives unless they have a really important role to get rid of. So my opinions may be weird Edited June 10, 2019 by Amanuensis Posted early somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xinoehp512 Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted June 10, 2019 Report Share Posted June 10, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, xinoehp512 said: Oh Lord Mistborn, what have I done. Spoiler (28) xinoehp512 (7) Amanuensis (5) Aonar (3) Fifth Scholar (2) _Stick_ (1) Lumgol (1) StrikerEZ (1) Mailliw73 Edited June 10, 2019 by Amanuensis forgot to reference Spook 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeMarshall Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 13 minutes ago, Amanuensis said: Okay so, actual count. You're missing at least one... 2 minutes ago, Amanuensis said: I would rather give everyone a free turn to get into the swing of things, personally, but I'm on the more left wing / liberal side of the lynching political parties and I know a lot of people don't see eye to eye. The Catch 22 is that we need votes and pressure from them to get the ball rolling, D1 included. So what I'm saying is if people have a genuine reason to vote, do it and don't hold back. We can figure out the rest from there. Otherwise I would rather not shoot in the dark and risk friendly fire. Easy for you to say; when you do come up with somebody to lynch you'll probably be right I'm pretty sure that D1 lynches are somewhat less likely to hit an eliminator than just randomly selecting a player to be lynched. On the one hand, the elims tip their hand by swaying the lynch, but on the other, you're likely to get a mislynch out of it. I generally believe having a D1 lynch in games that allow it is more helpful, but it's going to be a tradeoff either way, without an obviously better choice. (it also can depend on whether you have an odd or even number of eliminators and players in total, due to it influencing when LyLo could happen) When it comes down to it, I don't mind if we don't actually go through with lynching anybody, but I do think the intent to have a lynch is very productive. There really ought to be a nontrivial chance that the D1 lynch will actually happen, so we can learn stuff from voting and seeing how people react. For example, I cast a vote on Rath. Rath gave a response that satisfied. Now I have a better read on Rath. ...and now I just talked myself into an idea. We'll see how this goes Right now, these are my reads (also while I'm reading through everyone's posts, nice RP everyone ): Amanuensis - So far, I'm pretty sure everything they've posted are things they might have said from any of the alignments. Ark1002 Lumgol Fifth Scholar - Generally good contribution to discussion, although I'm not yet convinced this is alignment indicative for Fifth. Araris Valerian Ventyl Furamirionind - I'm apparently not very good at reading Fura. Rathmaskal - soft village read from their response to my vote, which was both prompt and genuine-sounding Devotary of Spontaneity - soft village read from suggesting we leave the kandra alone to go after the elims, which I doubt an elim would suggest even to blend in, and would be a really bold move for the SK to be making Sart _Stick_ - soft village read for posting about the possibility of an elim-kandra, which I think an elim would have brought up in the elim doc Walin Aonar Snipexe Straw Drake Marshall - it's that Drake guy I keep hearing about, he sounds pretty great so I guess he's probably village xinoehp512 I think we undervalue the use of village reads. Sure, an accurate elim read can catch an elim, but an accurate village read permanently narrows the hunting field. Even a random vote can be effective if you can narrow down the list enough. Assuming my trust reads are reasonably accurate, and assuming 4 elims 1 SK, that's 5/13 (38%) odds of hitting an evil player if I just choose randomly. For reference lynches are on average accurate about 1 in 3 times, so 38% isn't bad, especially for a D1 lynch. Of those, Lumgol, Araris, Sart, Walin, and Straw are still in "inactivity filter" territory, and whether they post later or not, it doesn't at this point make sense to lynch them. I'm also going to hold off on lynching Amanuensis, because I've already poked them once with a vote. I'm also not going to lynch Ventyl because it would be poor form to lynch a brand new player on the first day. Bringing the list down to 6: Ark1002 Fifth Scholar Furamirionind Aonar Snipexe xinoehp512 It may be a shot in the dark, but it's an educated shot in the dark. RNG chooses Ark. Here's the catch. Like I said, I want there to be a nontrivial chance that somebody gets lynched. I expect to be online during rollover. Right before rollover, I'm going to use RNG to decide whether I retract my vote or not. Ark already has one vote. Maybe my second vote will count, maybe it won't I don't even know yet. It'll be a surprise. This is kind of breaking new ground, since I've definitely never done this before. But, I thought about this, and I think it might actually be a sensible D1 practice. It's a way to gain most of the benefits from a lynch discussion, but with reduced risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifth Scholar Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 8 hours ago, _Stick_ said: Maybe, but not in the early cycles. Could you elaborate on this? Why are role trades more desirable as the game continues, or less useful early on? 3 hours ago, Amanuensis said: So, unpopular opinion, buttt... Considering that lynches aren't mandatory, I wouldn't be opposed to skipping the lynch today, if I'm honest. This stage in the game I always prefer removing inactives, but with the inactivity filter in place, it's probably not necessary for the endstate of the game. Note: when I say skipping the lynch, I mostly mean finishing it. People should be voting and analyzing even when we have little to no info. 2 hours ago, Amanuensis said: I would rather give everyone a free turn to get into the swing of things, personally, but I'm on the more left wing / liberal side of the lynching political parties and I know a lot of people don't see eye to eye. The Catch 22 is that we need votes and pressure from them to get the ball rolling, D1 included. So what I'm saying is if people have a genuine reason to vote, do it and don't hold back. We can figure out the rest from there. Otherwise I would rather not shoot in the dark and risk friendly fire. Even if people have little genuine reason to vote, they should admit as such—and still vote. Also, are we really bringing back this discussion again? [Plugs Kas’ post in LG12] There, that was a fun and conclusive conversation! As for these points, and some of your later posts, I’d push back against the idea that the main value we garner from the lynch is the alignment flip, at least on D1; certainly, it’s important, but the discussion generated when both villagers and Eliminators have to start choosing sides in a lynch with real stakes is ultimately what produces the AI content which allows us to analyse players and further the game. And as for your comment on friendly fire, that set off a lot of alarms to me. An inherent risk in lynching, or vigilante killing, is friendly fire, and being unwilling to accept that risk simply allows invariably hostile fire from the Eliminators to determine the broader course of the game. As I disagree with his views on this and on D1 lynches, and because I’m getting increasingly suspicious that I’m being pocketed, Amanuensis (and Devotary as well, I suppose, whose read I’ve bumped back up to neutral). That said, one area I do agree with Aman on is the need for more players to contribute—part of my suspicion of Aman may lie in the simple fact that the sheer volume of content he’s posted has made me find something to latch onto, and in any case we need to start getting more reads on lesser-active players if we hope to perform well in the endgame. 5 hours ago, Amanuensis said: For the record, Villager Bucks (TM) aren't really quantifiable. It's just a joke I decided I would roll with for the game. But for Fifth's response, I shall award him yet another Villager Buck (TM). I would expect villagers to be more inherently suspicious of it / go out of the way to analyze it, even if a little. And this is either pocketing, me starting to head into a tunnel, or a paranoia-inducing IKYK from Kandra!Aman. Either way this is kind of making me want to see Aman dead so that I have an alignment to attach to whatever he’s doing to me. >> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sart Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 "Oy, you, speak up!" "..." "Hey, I'm talking to you. How do we know you're not a rebel?" "You don't." "Wha... That's not helping!" "..." "D-do you have any leads?" "Wilco (Amanuensis) and Sindale (Devotary of Spontaneity) seem to be working together." "So you agree with Serdig (Fifth Scholar) then?" "Yep." "So... what's your plan then?" "I'll grab Sindale (Devotary of Spontaneity). He's off." "But Serdig is voting for Wilco." "So?" "Well, we have to work together to..." "I trust my gut. It's Sindale." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furamirionind Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 (edited) Hi Sart. Im not going to place my vote on anyone at the moment. I will do so either tonight or in the morning based on suspicions Edit: oops {color=green]Sart Edit: oops again... Edit again?: For some reason it deleted my removed vote... Sart Edited June 11, 2019 by Furamirionind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araris Valerian Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 I’m going to vote on Drake for now. I’m tired now, and might reconsider tomorrow morning, but something seems off in the elimination process he is using. I’m also not sure about the rng vote removal, because it could both be an honest village suggestion or a way to distance with lower risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeMarshall Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Araris Valerian said: I’m going to vote on Drake for now. Good idea. If you vote on me right now, I'm probably less likely to attract votes about D1 stuff later. They'll never suspect Would it change your mind if I claimed cop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanuensis Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said: ... Even if people have little genuine reason to vote, they should admit as such—and still vote. Also, are we really bringing back this discussion again? [Plugs Kas’ post in LG12] There, that was a fun and conclusive conversation! As for these points, and some of your later posts, I’d push back against the idea that the main value we garner from the lynch is the alignment flip, at least on D1; certainly, it’s important, but the discussion generated when both villagers and Eliminators have to start choosing sides in a lynch with real stakes is ultimately what produces the AI content which allows us to analyse players and further the game. And as for your comment on friendly fire, that set off a lot of alarms to me. An inherent risk in lynching, or vigilante killing, is friendly fire, and being unwilling to accept that risk simply allows invariably hostile fire from the Eliminators to determine the broader course of the game. As I disagree with his views on this and on D1 lynches, and because I’m getting increasingly suspicious that I’m being pocketed, Amanuensis (and Devotary as well, I suppose, whose read I’ve bumped back up to neutral). That said, one area I do agree with Aman on is the need for more players to contribute—part of my suspicion of Aman may lie in the simple fact that the sheer volume of content he’s posted has made me find something to latch onto, and in any case we need to start getting more reads on lesser-active players if we hope to perform well in the endgame. And this is either pocketing, me starting to head into a tunnel, or a paranoia-inducing IKYK from Kandra!Aman. Either way this is kind of making me want to see Aman dead so that I have an alignment to attach to whatever he’s doing to me. >> I'll admit, I think you came into my posts with your opinion already settled, and thus glossed over some details / made some incorrect assumptions. Like your first sentence, for example. Quote Even if people have little genuine reason to vote, they should admit as such—and still vote. This is what you said. Quote Note: when I say skipping the lynch, I mostly mean finishing it. People should be voting and analyzing even when we have little to no info. Quote The Catch 22 is that we need votes and pressure from them to get the ball rolling, D1 included. So what I'm saying is if people have a genuine reason to vote, do it and don't hold back. We can figure out the rest from there. Otherwise I would rather not shoot in the dark and risk friendly fire. And this is what I said. It seems that when I said "if people have a genuine reason to vote," you took that to mean "if you don't have a genuine reason to vote, don't." I think the first question you should be asking is what kind of votes constitute as genuine. Examples include Mrake's vote on Rath for the role-madness assumption, or even your vote on me (despite me personally thinking its silly). What matters in your case is that you're providing reasoning and making an argument. Which makes non-genuine votes something like poke votes, which I expressed my opinion on already, or bandwagon votes, where players don't think for themselves and instead sheep others. Let's keep in mind that in the very last game I played, I was barely paying attention at all and hadn't been in a game of SE for at least half a year if not longer, and yet I managed to vote on an eliminator almost immediately because they didn't vote genuinely. I noticed they poke voted the very last player not to post (me) toward the end of the first day, and that there was no real energy or teeth behind it, which suggested to me that the player wasn't interested in solving the game at all. Drive to solve, honestly, is probably the biggest indication of villagerness to me. If I see that people are putting real effort into their posts, in analyzing other players and forming arguments, than I'm more willing to believe they're village aligned. It is very difficult to craft that sort of thing as an eliminator, or at the very least to do it without any tells or evil intent bleeding through, which means if I see it, I'm going to put you into the "contemplate later" pile and focus more on the people who aren't doing anything to help the village. Also, as for this statement... 10 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said: Also, are we really bringing back this discussion again? Considering I've been out of the SE loop for a very long time and have no clue how more than half the players stand on these kinds of topics... then yes, I'm going to bring it up, because how can I play if I don't know the people I'm playing with? 10 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said: There, that was a fun and conclusive conversation! As for these points, and some of your later posts, I’d push back against the idea that the main value we garner from the lynch is the alignment flip, at least on D1; certainly, it’s important, but the discussion generated when both villagers and Eliminators have to start choosing sides in a lynch with real stakes is ultimately what produces the AI content which allows us to analyse players and further the game. And as for your comment on friendly fire, that set off a lot of alarms to me. An inherent risk in lynching, or vigilante killing, is friendly fire, and being unwilling to accept that risk simply allows invariably hostile fire from the Eliminators to determine the broader course of the game. As I disagree with his views on this and on D1 lynches, and because I’m getting increasingly suspicious that I’m being pocketed, Amanuensis (and Devotary as well, I suppose, whose read I’ve bumped back up to neutral). That said, one area I do agree with Aman on is the need for more players to contribute—part of my suspicion of Aman may lie in the simple fact that the sheer volume of content he’s posted has made me find something to latch onto, and in any case we need to start getting more reads on lesser-active players if we hope to perform well in the endgame. I just reread my posts and I can't find a point where I stated "the main value we garner from the lynch is the alignment flip." I do believe the most relevant statements I made to this subject were. Quote I'd rather give every player some leeway cause A: Villagers get more time to prove their Villagers and B: Eliminators get more time to leave unintentional clues. And honestly, every time I've seen a D1 lynch land on an elim it ends up being a problem itself. Very hard to tell if it's sheer luck, a bus, or what. And they almost never leave anything useful to analyze behind. This is almost exactly the same thing as... Quote but the discussion generated when both villagers and Eliminators have to start choosing sides in a lynch with real stakes is ultimately what produces the AI content which allows us to analyse players and further the game. We are of the same mind, Fifth, which is why I think your vote is a bit silly. We both right here agree it's the discussion we need. And in my honest opinion, killing any player who only had a single turn of this game to interact with others, village or eliminator, net's the village practically nothing. The longer a person lives, the more they communicate with others, the more clues are left behind, the more chance they have to prove themselves, and in turn, the more time other people have to judge this player and make their opinions known. On the subject of friendly fire, ever since my participation in the MU Championships, I have consistently done my best to only vote on eliminators. Although I haven't kept track of the specifics, I know that my rate of success is pretty dang high. I'm not saying this to toot my own horn. I'm saying this so you understand my mindset. Every innocent life is precious. Sure this might just be a game, but that's the way I see it. Although it's a risk people sign up for, who honestly enjoys dying? I know I don't. And because I'm a naturally empathetic person, I have issues killing other people. "Do only onto others what you want done to yourself," right? While there's no hard feelings between factions (we're just doing our job), I still take this philosophy into account with every post I write and every action I take. Not to mention the fact that every villager we lynch diminishes our power and gives the eliminators a better chance to win. It's not about me being unwilling to accept risks. I just am unwilling to accept bad or uninformed risks. And most of the time, D1 lynches are exactly that. 10 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said: That said, one area I do agree with Aman on is the need for more players to contribute—part of my suspicion of Aman may lie in the simple fact that the sheer volume of content he’s posted has made me find something to latch onto, and in any case we need to start getting more reads on lesser-active players if we hope to perform well in the endgame. And this is either pocketing, me starting to head into a tunnel, or a paranoia-inducing IKYK from Kandra!Aman. Either way this is kind of making me want to see Aman dead so that I have an alignment to attach to whatever he’s doing to me. >> For what it's worth, this is most certainly a tunnel. Yourself and Mrake have proven yourselves enough to get sent to the probably-village, "contemplate later" pile. Even if you're on the wrong track (and that this particular track has made me your target), I can see you're wandering around in search of tracks. Not to mention you dove head first into one of the more controversial ones. More often than not, eliminators prefer the easy lynches this early. ED1T: Now can you tell me about your opinion on Devotary and Rath? Edited June 11, 2019 by Amanuensis 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stick. Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 18 hours ago, Rathmaskal said: Other than my quick reasoning that having 11 unique roles and 17 players already put us most of the way there? Well, the rules were obviously put out before the exact number of players could be determined. So... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15 hours ago, Amanuensis said: when I say skipping the lynch, I mostly mean finishing it. what do you mean? While I think it's sometimes fine to have a no-lynch in QFs and stuff where the games move quicker, I think they're actually quite helpful in LGs. Especially in hindsight in the later stages of the game. 15 hours ago, Amanuensis said: (2) _Stick_ (surprised this is so low with her post count tbh) I tend not to use many emojis on the Shard because it changes the /:Ps to that overly joyous weird smiley thing. I've seen some people try and cheat that by using alternatives such as =P (joe) and : P (Fura), but even those don't come close to the power of a normal /:P (ignoring the slash). So instead, I only use /:Ps at the end of sentences so that it kinda merges with the full-stop like this.:P I do sometimes also use but to me it has a different meaning than /:P does. /:P makes stuff sound a little less serious and lighthearted (so I tend to use it a lot on discord/docs) whereas is more like "HAHAH NICE" I hope you understand. 14 hours ago, Amanuensis said: I would rather give everyone a free turn to get into the swing of things, personally, but I'm on the more left wing / liberal side of the lynching political parties and I know a lot of people don't see eye to eye. The Catch 22 is that we need votes and pressure from them to get the ball rolling, D1 included. So what I'm saying is if people have a genuine reason to vote, do it and don't hold back. We can figure out the rest from there. Otherwise I would rather not shoot in the dark and risk friendly fire. nvm my question above From what you're suggesting, we're likely to get a lynch anyway. Just not a very solid one. Which...might be useful now that I think about it. If the votes are close enough and the elims have vote manip they might feel the need to use it to prevent a teammate from getting lynched. D1 they probably don't know any anybody's roles aside from their own, so it's not like they'd prefer to lynch one villager over another. So if they use it at all, we can probably infer that it was done to save a teammate. But then again, now that I've mentioned it this can turn into an IKYK. Whatever. XD 14 hours ago, Amanuensis said: But then again, I'm also the type of eliminator who avoids killing actives unless they have a really important role to get rid of *Takes note. 12 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said: Could you elaborate on this? Why are role trades more desirable as the game continues, or less useful early on? Just cuz you generally get a good idea of who you can trust as the game progresses.:P 12 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said: [Plugs Kas’ post in LG12] Nice. I will probably cast a vote soon, but for now I'll just note that this Fifth and Aman interaction seems interesting. My gut says it's almost certainly not a w/w interaction. Probably town/town, w/t or t/w. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifth Scholar Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 2 hours ago, Amanuensis said: I'll admit, I think you came into my posts with your opinion already settled, and thus glossed over some details / made some incorrect assumptions. Like your first sentence, for example. This is what you said. And this is what I said. It seems that when I said "if people have a genuine reason to vote," you took that to mean "if you don't have a genuine reason to vote, don't." I think the first question you should be asking is what kind of votes constitute as genuine. Examples include Mrake's vote on Rath for the role-madness assumption, or even your vote on me (despite me personally thinking its silly). What matters in your case is that you're providing reasoning and making an argument. Which makes non-genuine votes something like poke votes, which I expressed my opinion on already, or bandwagon votes, where players don't think for themselves and instead sheep others. Let's keep in mind that in the very last game I played, I was barely paying attention at all and hadn't been in a game of SE for at least half a year if not longer, and yet I managed to vote on an eliminator almost immediately because they didn't vote genuinely. I noticed they poke voted the very last player not to post (me) toward the end of the first day, and that there was no real energy or teeth behind it, which suggested to me that the player wasn't interested in solving the game at all. Drive to solve, honestly, is probably the biggest indication of villagerness to me. If I see that people are putting real effort into their posts, in analyzing other players and forming arguments, than I'm more willing to believe they're village aligned. It is very difficult to craft that sort of thing as an eliminator, or at the very least to do it without any tells or evil intent bleeding through, which means if I see it, I'm going to put you into the "contemplate later" pile and focus more on the people who aren't doing anything to help the village. Also, as for this statement... Considering I've been out of the SE loop for a very long time and have no clue how more than half the players stand on these kinds of topics... then yes, I'm going to bring it up, because how can I play if I don't know the people I'm playing with? I just reread my posts and I can't find a point where I stated "the main value we garner from the lynch is the alignment flip." I do believe the most relevant statements I made to this subject were. This is almost exactly the same thing as... We are of the same mind, Fifth, which is why I think your vote is a bit silly. We both right here agree it's the discussion we need. And in my honest opinion, killing any player who only had a single turn of this game to interact with others, village or eliminator, net's the village practically nothing. The longer a person lives, the more they communicate with others, the more clues are left behind, the more chance they have to prove themselves, and in turn, the more time other people have to judge this player and make their opinions known. On the subject of friendly fire, ever since my participation in the MU Championships, I have consistently done my best to only vote on eliminators. Although I haven't kept track of the specifics, I know that my rate of success is pretty dang high. I'm not saying this to toot my own horn. I'm saying this so you understand my mindset. Every innocent life is precious. Sure this might just be a game, but that's the way I see it. Although it's a risk people sign up for, who honestly enjoys dying? I know I don't. And because I'm a naturally empathetic person, I have issues killing other people. "Do only onto others what you want done to yourself," right? While there's no hard feelings between factions (we're just doing our job), I still take this philosophy into account with every post I write and every action I take. Not to mention the fact that every villager we lynch diminishes our power and gives the eliminators a better chance to win. It's not about me being unwilling to accept risks. I just am unwilling to accept bad or uninformed risks. And most of the time, D1 lynches are exactly that. For what it's worth, this is most certainly a tunnel. Yourself and Mrake have proven yourselves enough to get sent to the probably-village, "contemplate later" pile. Even if you're on the wrong track (and that this particular track has made me your target), I can see you're wandering around in search of tracks. Not to mention you dove head first into one of the more controversial ones. More often than not, eliminators prefer the easy lynches this early. ED1T: Now can you tell me about your opinion on Devotary and Rath? My opinion on D1 lynches is fairly settled, true—except in extreme cases, I’ll value discussion over the lives of villagers, including my own; I’m unaware if you’ve played games with me before when I do this, but I tend to be okay with mislynches on me if the discussion and reads surrounding the lynch and my death are more productive than a pursuit of a suspicion of mine who I’m not certain is an elim; if they’re not, discussion is further wasted and there’s a major unresolved point of conflict. I don’t know how much of that made sense, but in essence this might amount to a difference in playstyle or preferences. While I’ll acknowledge that, it doesn’t particularly reduce my suspicion of you. As for your next three paragraphs, I basically agree completely with what you’re saying here, and recognise that I maybe (probably) misinterpreted your statement; however, I’d like to briefly defend at least some bandwagon votes—for instance, if a player presents a compelling argument, and another person follows their argument but adds “I disagree with part X of your analysis, but quote Y from this Player is another reason to find them suspicious,” or something along those lines, that’s fine as it still adds to discussion despite bandwagoning. Even players who do simply sheep still help more than by not voting at all because it’s easier to track who they’re sheeping and why. So bandwagon votes are a little more acceptable in my view. That said, original analysis should always be encouraged. My apologies as to how that statement came off; it wasn’t my intent, but in my defence I’ve participated in enough discussion on the value of D1 lynching as to be slightly weary on the whole topic. Perhaps it’s because it seems like circular discussion which simply exists for its own sake, or because the constant debate is not changing my views, but discussion on this sort of thing always seems to me like an elaborate digression which gives players an excuse to comment on something which is generally NAI and not related to the actual business of finding Eliminators. Anyone who brings it up, therefore, makes me slightly suspicious, but your explanation as to why you did so is reasonable, so you get a pass. An increased emphasis on the alignment flip was more implicit from your qualification that Quote So what I'm saying is if people have a genuine reason to vote, do it and don't hold back. We can figure out the rest from there. Otherwise I would rather not shoot in the dark and risk friendly fire. The idea here is that if people don’t have a genuine reason to vote, the D1 lynch should be abstained from because friendly fire is the main risk; hence, the killing and alignment flip are the most important products of a D1 lynch. Conversely, I see the lack of discussion generated by a no-lynch as more harmful than the friendly fire that a lynch can sometimes create, and therefore the greater risk; again, an emphasis on discussion and analysis over alignment flips and death, which seems to be your main focus. We are of a similar mind, I’d agree, but certainly not the same; indeed, it’s in this paragraph in which I take the largest issue from your stance on the D1 lynch. You say that Quote And in my honest opinion, killing any player who only had a single turn of this game to interact with others, village or eliminator, net's the village practically nothing. The longer a person lives, the more they communicate with others, the more clues are left behind, the more chance they have to prove themselves, and in turn, the more time other people have to judge this player and make their opinions known. So my issue with this is that I agree with you. The more a player is alive, the more chances they have to slip, the more we get a clearer picture of their alignment, etc. You’re correct. But they only need to create the kind of content which is worth analysing if they know that there’s a credible threat to them in the form of a lynch. The lynch, as you point out in your next paragraph, is wonderful at catching Eliminators. But it’s also a bludgeon, usable for prodding people into giving their opinions on other players and to pressure those players we find to be suspicious or quiet; however, this important function is scrapped if a predetermination is made that we shouldn’t lynch. Without retaining the ability and the threat of a kill, the village is unable to force Eliminators and indolent villagers into the sort of analysable discussions that eventually allow us to lynch them. Therefore, keeping them around longer, as you propose, doesn’t necessarily increase the amount of “quality” content which a suspicious player puts out, and simply gives the Eliminators more time to determine who should die (rather than the village), without really helping the village along in their quest. Re: friendly fire, I agree that nobody really appreciates dying, but death is ultimately what advances the game for both villagers and Eliminators (after all, we signed up for a game which explicitly promises that we’d get the chance to kill our friends ). Without lynching today, we would grant the Eliminators (and the judgement of any vigilante villagers) the only say in who is to die. That’s less fair to the killed villagers than a lynch in which they may participate and give reasons and arguments for why they should be allowed to live. I do understand your philosophy here, and your aversion to what you believe is an uninformed risk. But a D2 lynch without a D1 lynch discussion and result is just as uninformed as the regular D1 lynch, and only serves to set back discussion. And while every villager lynched does put the Eliminators closer to victory, the only way we kill and catch Eliminators is via the lynch (or by vigilantes, but they’re less predictable and not something most of the village can participate in). Our method of killing does put villagers at risk, but it’s also the only way to accomplish our win condition; therefore, sometimes we pay the price which a mislynch exacts. My apologies if I seem callous, but the risk you speak of is part of SE and never really goes away. As for my views on Devotary and Rath? I initially suspected Devotary for what seems in hindsight to be nothing more than misunderstood/messy phrasing (perhaps here you’d draw an analogy ), but have since moved my read back up to neutral with perhaps a slight elim tilt. She’s not said or done much to earn my trust, and my initial suspicion of her comments is kind of lingering. I’m not entirely sure why people are pursuing Rath for the role-madness comment—based on the last few LGs, it seems a fair assumption to make, though on the off-chance he’s both wrong and village he did paint a target on his back. As with Devotary, however, I’ve seen little which makes me trust him, and would probably like more analysis on players from him (though that goes for pretty much everybody). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rathmaskal Posted June 11, 2019 Report Share Posted June 11, 2019 15 minutes ago, _Stick_ said: Well, the rules were obviously put out before the exact number of players could be determined. So... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I will probably cast a vote soon, but for now I'll just note that this Fifth and Aman interaction seems interesting. My gut says it's almost certainly not a w/w interaction. Probably town/town, w/t or t/w. For the first sentence, OK, that's a good point. If there were 25 players, I definitely wouldn't have made the same assumption, so maybe it wasn't a very good one. For the second, I agree that is almost definitely not w/w... I'm almost hesitant to post this since it may kind of disrupt the flow of their conversation. In general, I agree quite closely with Aman's comments. *Ninja Fifth* *Reads Fifth's essay* OK, there go the couple things I was going to bring up... So, new content. So, I'm always curious about how things are going to look in different ways. Here's a brief outline of what's happened so far this turn: a = game analysis p = player analysis l = quick post, usually a response to something specific c = check in or non-game related post r = role play only Aman aaaalllca Ark rrr Lum c Fifth aaaa Araris l Ventyl rr Fura cllllll Rath alllll Devotary aaa Sart t Stick alllla Walin Aonar al Snip r Straw Drake aallap Xino cc Not sure what to get out of that so far. Just thought it interesting. (One of these days I'm going to find some different way to analyze posts that people actually like...) Do these count toward my score? d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: d: 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts