Mid-Range Game 42: The Auction of Lord Winsting

[Karnage]

11 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

How is Sart's "bandwagon-y attitude" any different from mine? I explicity voted on Karnage because he already had a vote. There is a 3-vote minimum for the lynch this cycle, and because it is very rare for any obvious AI stuff to come up cycle 1, some bandwagoning is necessary for a lynch to happen at all. I'm usually uncomfortable voting on Straw, since his village playstyle sends to set me off consistently. But I think having lynch pressure this early is good, and I'm somewhat suspicious of Xino for trying to remove that pressure so quickly.

14 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

I’m here and I think I’ll vote on Karnage, as someone who is only poke-voting and who also already has a vote.

@Araris Valerian So you are perfectly fine with joining a bandwagon but not with poke voting. Interesting. To me this kinda seems like I am missing something in the equation that would make this make sense. But, I do not think I am. I believe this is very incongruous. Not that by itself it is suspicious. By its self I find it NAI but...

If Sart is elim and you are too, then this might make sense. It seems to me like poke voting and bandwagon are mutually fair game if one person like one then they will probably like the other. But from these statements you are putting a vote on someone that is poke voting but then later turn around to defend someone you haven't even had contact with in the thread, for being a bandwagon. This kinda screams (or at least by my logic) that you two are both elims and you were trying to defend a fellow elim.

But, you don't have any votes so I will redact my vote on TGK and put it on Sart because if he gets lynched then you will look pretty guilty to everyone else.

If this doesn't make any sense that please respond!!!!!!!! And tell me well my logic went astray.

-Karnage

[Orlok Tsubodai]

36 minutes ago, Straw said:

While I am biased since it's my neck on the line, I very much disagree with lynching for information, rather than actually trying to vote on someone suspicious. First of all, lynching me just because I've interacted with a lot of people sends the message that if people are active and interact with others, they will be lynched. I doubt that is the kind of attitude or message that would be helpful to us in the future. Secondly, lynching for information corrupts the information you're trying to gain. People won't vote or defend based on legitimate reads, they'll vote based off of information gain. This makes it easier for eliminators to hide in the crowd, since they don't have to formulate reads, and reduces the amount of information you actually gain. In my opinion, we should always be focusing on the player who's the most suspicious. I'm kind of surprised you'd push for infolynching, since I feel like you should know how weak it is.

To the contrary, Straw. My philosophy has long been that the village always needs to address the information imbalance with eliminators - in fact, that is the core mechanic of the game. A day one lynch based on suspicion is highly unlikely to be accurate - the suspicions are based on limited information, and limited connection between players. Day one therefore ought to be about finding as much information as possible, and identifying as many connections between players as we can. The lynch on you has done this to a degree - we will be able to look through the thread and identify those who have supported you, and those who have not done so. This information is useful in isolation, certainly, but becomes significantly more useful when we know your alignment. If we had reasonable and material suspicion of another player, then I agree that that would be a sound lynch. We do not, and therefore validating our information on a set of players with your alignment is in my mind, at present, the most useful lynch we can undertake.

I am on a 5 minute break from a meeting - I shall pull together those connections with regards to your defence and lynch post meeting to illustrate this.

[Mat]

Whew. Just woke up, there are a lot of posts to get through... we'll see...

9 hours ago, Zillah said:

 

@Matrim's_Dice, could I ask what logic specifically says elim?

I am referring to everyone else posting their suspicions of him, not Xino's own posts. This is me listening to everybody else.  Like I said though, gut village read.

8 hours ago, The_God_King said:

Have to post to vote next cycle.

This strikes me as slightly suspicious, similar to his first post he didn't really say anything. @The_God_King could you explain what you mean by 'have to post to vote next cycle'?

 

Top Village reads: Orlok, Straw, BrightnessRadiant, Kynedath

Top Elim reads (though none of these are very strong): Sart, TGK, Araris

 

Even though he still hasn't posted I'm going to retract my vote on Archivist and move it over to Sart

[Shard of Reading]

Sorry I did not post yesterday. I was over at my grandparents house and did not have time to check the thread.

But as I see it I think that we should not lynch straw for a few reasons. 

1. Lynches in the first round are unlikely to be accurate
2. From what he has been saying he is not acting like a elim
3. and lastly he seems to be finding out a lot of information about people, so he would be good to keep around.

[Emi]

5 minutes ago, Shard of Reading said:

Sorry I did not post yesterday. I was over at my grandparents house and did not have time to check the thread.

So you have A LOT to make up.

Where do we vote exactly?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Emi

[Mat]

Just now, Emi said:

Where we exactly vote?

We vote by putting the players name in red color text, found in the setting above where you type. See me post prior to this for an example.

We vote whenever, you don't have to, (I think) but the cycle ends in like 19-20 hours or something like that. Someone check my math?

[Straw]

3 minutes ago, Orlok Tsubodai said:

To the contrary, Straw. My philosophy has long been that the village always needs to address the information imbalance with eliminators - in fact, that is the core mechanic of the game. A day one lynch based on suspicion is highly unlikely to be accurate - the suspicions are based on limited information, and limited connection between players. Day one therefore ought to be about finding as much information as possible, and identifying as many connections between players as we can. The lynch on you has done this to a degree - we will be able to look through the thread and identify those who have supported you, and those who have not done so. This information is useful in isolation, certainly, but becomes significantly more useful when we know your alignment. If we had reasonable and material suspicion of another player, then I agree that that would be a sound lynch. We do not, and therefore validating our information on a set of players with your alignment is in my mind, at present, the most useful lynch we can undertake.

I am on a 5 minute break from a meeting - I shall pull together those connections with regards to your defence and lynch post meeting to illustrate this.

Yes, the village needs to address the information balance. However, infolynching is a poor way to accomplish that. By directly saying you're infolynching, you provide few ways for your target to put up any defense. They can hardly go back and say they didn't interact with anyone else, or didn't make any posts. Infolynching also provides people with an easy way to bandwagon. They don't particularly have to analyze the person they're lynching, and they can just hop on the train. I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on infolynching. I'd be curious to hear what other people think of infolynching after seeing our arguments for and against it.

In regards to your "reasonable and material suspicion", I do believe that several players are more suspicious than me. Some people that immediately come to mind are Sart, for bandwagoning on me with little reason and Araris, for being supportive of bandwagoning but opposed to poke-voting. Pyro and Xino were both suspicions of mine, but I've grown less suspicious of them.

I will be interested to see your post, since I have yet to see any response to my response to your post. I also have yet to see why you're so supportive of Emi, and why you wanted Matrim to sheep your vote. Some thoughts on Sart or Araris would also be appreciated.

1 minute ago, Emi said:

So you have A LOT to make up.

Where do we vote exactly?

You vote in the thread in red text. Red text can be created by doing something like this:

[color=red]Emi[/color]

Also, in an attempt to get some content from you: How do you feel about Orlok reading you as village? Do you think you've done anything especially village-ish so far this game to deserve that? What are your suspicions and reads on other players?

[Emi]

17 minutes ago, Straw said:

You vote in the thread in red text. Red text can be created by doing something like this:

[color=red]Emi[/color]

 

Or, you can just change color in the box near the one with size, there, where you have text color

[Experience]

Yay, I'm here!

Ok, first some thoughts on Straw. I'm pretty sure I haven't been in any games when Straw was an elim, so I'm not sure what if anything would be different if he was. I've played when he was an SK, and I'm leaning towards thinking that he's at least not Bleeder. 

Honestly, GodKing's posts are just unusual to me. I'm pretty sure they had one post that said he was in a barrel, and another to say that he had to post in order to vote to disperse the party, and hasn't yet said anything to defend himself or help the village at all. @The_God_King, thoughts?

[Kynedath]

infolynching is a term I've never seen used before, so this will be based on context alone from the discussion between Straw and Orlok. Seen below if you missed it, also as a reference for me when I writing this post.

1 hour ago, Straw said:

While I am biased since it's my neck on the line, I very much disagree with lynching for information, rather than actually trying to vote on someone suspicious. First of all, lynching me just because I've interacted with a lot of people sends the message that if people are active and interact with others, they will be lynched. I doubt that is the kind of attitude or message that would be helpful to us in the future. Secondly, lynching for information corrupts the information you're trying to gain. People won't vote or defend based on legitimate reads, they'll vote based off of information gain. This makes it easier for eliminators to hide in the crowd, since they don't have to formulate reads, and reduces the amount of information you actually gain. In my opinion, we should always be focusing on the player who's the most suspicious. I'm kind of surprised you'd push for infolynching, since I feel like you should know how weak it is.

1 hour ago, Orlok Tsubodai said:

To the contrary, Straw. My philosophy has long been that the village always needs to address the information imbalance with eliminators - in fact, that is the core mechanic of the game. A day one lynch based on suspicion is highly unlikely to be accurate - the suspicions are based on limited information, and limited connection between players. Day one therefore ought to be about finding as much information as possible, and identifying as many connections between players as we can. The lynch on you has done this to a degree - we will be able to look through the thread and identify those who have supported you, and those who have not done so. This information is useful in isolation, certainly, but becomes significantly more useful when we know your alignment. If we had reasonable and material suspicion of another player, then I agree that that would be a sound lynch. We do not, and therefore validating our information on a set of players with your alignment is in my mind, at present, the most useful lynch we can undertake.

29 minutes ago, Straw said:

Yes, the village needs to address the information balance. However, infolynching is a poor way to accomplish that. By directly saying you're infolynching, you provide few ways for your target to put up any defense. They can hardly go back and say they didn't interact with anyone else, or didn't make any posts. Infolynching also provides people with an easy way to bandwagon. They don't particularly have to analyze the person they're lynching, and they can just hop on the train. I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on infolynching. I'd be curious to hear what other people think of infolynching after seeing our arguments for and against it.

In regards to your "reasonable and material suspicion", I do believe that several players are more suspicious than me. Some people that immediately come to mind are Sart, for bandwagoning on me with little reason and Araris, for being supportive of bandwagoning but opposed to poke-voting. Pyro and Xino were both suspicions of mine, but I've grown less suspicious of them.

Infolynching is really only plausible during the first or second cycles, but even then I feel like it's weak. Once people specifically state that they're lynching someone just for information, all new information that cycle essentially stops being usable. Like Straw said, by lynching for information you are tainting the results and affecting how people respond, so yes you have the connections and positions before starting the infolynch that you can work with easier, but you don't have as much in the end since people an hide so well like Straw said.

And honestly, I agree with Straw that that isn't the kind of attitude I want to have, especially cycle one. It's a brutal philosophy that I don't particularly enjoy, nor do I find it to be better in the long run. Lynching the player that has talked the most and interacted with the most players incentivises players to keep quiet so that they don't draw attention to themselves which just helps the elims hide better. Plus, keeping talkative players around provides more information in the future, more connections being made to analyze when that player does get lynched from acting suspicious.

Honestly, this whole push for an infolynch is a really easy way for an elim to claim to be getting information for the village and instead just killing off a active player, which makes me quite suspicious of Orlok in addition to my other suspicions.

[The_God_King]

Well since people aren’t understanding me. 
- I posted because if I don’t post I can’t vote next cycle.

- also C1 is a conundrum to me because time and time again lines drawn day one only help eliminators. People can’t be cleared because they are useful C1 or even useful in other cycles. The same is the other way around. suspicions day one are random at best, elim manipulation at worst.

- Cheers! My barrel RP has made people confused. Also @Experience I didn’t say anything about dispersing only voting because I didn’t want to be drowsy

[Straw]

4 minutes ago, The_God_King said:

- also C1 is a conundrum to me because time and time again lines drawn day one only help eliminators. People can’t be cleared because they are useful C1 or even useful in other cycles. The same is the other way around. suspicions day one are random at best, elim manipulation at worst.

What makes you think this? I don't like how self-defeating this is. There are definitely good lines of discussion that we can follow C1, and it's hardly "random at best". We have six pages of posts to look at, and I highly doubt that people will be unable to get any reads from those. I'm mildly suspicious of anyone who pushes this kind of thought, since it just feels like an excuse to not participate.

EDIT: Also, what makes you say that people can't be cleared if they're useful? What non-mechanical things do you think can clear people?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Straw

[Shard of Reading]

Just a question what is C1?

[Kynedath]

Just now, Shard of Reading said:

Just a question what is C1?

It stands for Cycle 1, or the first cycle of the game.

D1 is Day 1, and N1 is Night 1.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Kynedath

[Straw]

Just now, Shard of Reading said:

Just a question what is C1?

Cycle one. Typical notation for ingame time is the part of the cycle if applicable and then the number. For example, a LG's threads would be like this: D1, N1, D2, N2 and a QF's threads would be like this: C1, C2. (D = day, N = night, C = cycle).

[Shard of Reading]

Please explain that without the other acronyms. (QF and LG)

[The_God_King]

11 minutes ago, Straw said:

What makes you think this? I don't like how self-defeating this is. There are definitely good lines of discussion that we can follow C1, and it's hardly "random at best". We have six pages of posts to look at, and I highly doubt that people will be unable to get any reads from those. I'm mildly suspicious of anyone who pushes this kind of thought, since it just feels like an excuse to not participate.

EDIT: Also, what makes you say that people can't be cleared if they're useful? What non-mechanical things do you think can clear people?

Dang, that’s not what I was wanting to convey. Last game we had similar number of posts and we didn’t find anything useful and even lynched a couple village because of it. I don’t appreciate the inquisition. I won’t argue meta on this. I think there’s plenty of good discussion and honestly I usually RP C1 and read the clarification and initial analysis that I myself can’t contribute much to. 

[Kynedath]

1 minute ago, Shard of Reading said:

Please explain that without the other acronyms. (QF and LG)

it stands for quick-fix and long game. There are three kinds of games on this forum, a quick fix, mid range (which is what we are playing) and a long game. Some games (typically long games but also some mid ranges) will have day turns and night turns, day turns where you vote and discuss, and night turns where you take actions, like in a regular game of mafia or werewolf. Some other games (typically quick fixes and mid ranges will have day and night turns combined into cycles where you discuss, vote, and take actions all within the same time period.

so in games with day night turns separate we use the acronyms D1 and N1, or Day 1 and Night 1 to indicate the first turns of the game, whereas in games with day and night turns combined we use C1 or cycle 1 to indicate the first cycle of the game.

[The_God_King]

5 minutes ago, Shard of Reading said:

Please explain that without the other acronyms. (QF and LG)

It’s the 48 hour cycles for this game. C1 is the first cycle, C2 is the second and on. Some games have days and nights distinguished as D1 N1

[Straw]

4 minutes ago, Shard of Reading said:

Please explain that without the other acronyms. (QF and LG)

QF = Quick Fix

MR = Mid-Range

LG = Long Game

More info can be found here

Also, that whole thread I just linked is a great resource for new players. It has a lexicon, etiquette guide, and the SE rules. 

[Mat]

7 minutes ago, Straw said:

Also, that whole thread I just linked is a great resource for new players. It has a lexicon, etiquette guide, and the SE rules. 

I literally have that open as another tab right now

Also, in terms of the game, I am interested in what @Lord_Silberfarben and @Dot has to say regarding the current lynch votes and their reads, as they have posted multiple times but just on the RP side of things.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Matrim's_Dice

[Shard of Reading]

Thank you. I read that thread but it is a lot information and I should probably review it again. Anyway, lynch the god king because it seems to me that he is trying to stall. And that would favor the elims.

[StrikerEZ]

So, I’ll probably come back later today once I’ve gone through and looked for actual suspicions and stuff, but I wanted to throw my hat in about something real quick.

I think I agree with Straw about infolynching. Yes, lynching someone who has had many interactions with other players can provide info on those players. But, the moment we say that we’re lynching them solely for that information, we lose valuable information that could come after that. If the lynch train forms after the mention of the infolynch, many of the votes lose their value. I can understand wanting to lynch someone for info, but that being the sole reason to lynch someone defeats the purpose by decreasing the amount of info gained from someone’s lynch.

[The_God_King]

1 minute ago, Shard of Reading said:

Thank you. I read that thread but it is a lot information and I should probably review it again. Anyway, lynch the god king because it seems to me that he is trying to stall. And that would favor the elims.

Welp... haha that’s what I get for posting 

[Shard of Reading]

Don't read too much into my vote because I have never played mafia like this before and my strategy in the past has always been to listen to who is moving so I am still trying to figure out strategy.