Mid-Range Game 47: Conflict of Superiority

[Quintessential]

Hi everyone! I exist. 

 

[Archer]

Cooper burst into the room, a stack of papers piled precariously in his arms. “Oh gosh golly everyone! I’m so sorry I’m late. I got lost and walked into the wrong meeting. This building is so confusing!” The young intern began passing pages around the room.

“I’m afraid I don’t know any of you very well. Perhaps-” he checked his notes “- Mr. Heklo could talk to me at some point? When you’re not busy of course. I don’t mean to be a bother, I’m just here to learn! Did everyone get their sheets of doodling paper? You could also make paper starships out of them. If you need any more, just wave me over! What are we voting for?”

Hey, all! Let me know if I’m using this new voting terminology correctly. I propose removing Snipexe. Snip has been exed. Snip.exe has stopped working. Nailed it.  

[Ghanderflaffle]

24 minutes ago, Archer said:

Cooper burst into the room, a stack of papers piled precariously in his arms. “Oh gosh golly everyone! I’m so sorry I’m late. I got lost and walked into the wrong meeting. This building is so confusing!” The young intern began passing pages around the room.

“I’m afraid I don’t know any of you very well. Perhaps-” he checked his notes “- Mr. Heklo could talk to me at some point? When you’re not busy of course. I don’t mean to be a bother, I’m just here to learn! Did everyone get their sheets of doodling paper? You could also make paper starships out of them. If you need any more, just wave me over! What are we voting for?”

Hey, all! Let me know if I’m using this new voting terminology correctly. I propose removing Snipexe. Snip has been exed. Snip.exe has stopped working. Nailed it.  

Nailed it. All for the pun. (I’m guessing that's where the vote came from anyways.)

[Straw]

lmao that was quite a shock. Wasn't expecting a reset.

I still stand with what I said about there probably being three elims. I think that four would be too many with the possibility of a conversion.

[Ghanderflaffle]

15 minutes ago, Straw said:

lmao that was quite a shock. Wasn't expecting a reset.

I still stand with what I said about there probably being three elims. I think that four would be too many with the possibility of a conversion.

I feel like we should still be planning on four so that we aren’t taken off guard if there are more than expected. That happened in QF48 and we (I was an elim that game) really used it to our advantage. So it would be better to overestimate than underestimate.

 

Also, I will miss most of the first half of next cycle, I’m going to be with family.

Edited December 23, 2020 by Ghanderflaffle

[Quintessential]

Just now, Ghanderflaffle said:

I feel like we should still be planning on four so that we aren’t taken off guard if there are more than expected. That happened in QF48 and we (I was an elim that game) really used it to our advantage. So it would be better to overestimate than underestimate.

I will second this (as one of the other elims from QF48); we really don't want them to have that advantage. Working under the assumption that there are four elims, we can say that, as xinoehp512 pointed out in the first version of this cycle, we can't afford many mis-exes.

So... uh... I mean, I know better at this point than to expect us to hit an elim with the C1 exe, but we should aim for that. And starting next cycle, we really need to focus on providing detailed explanations for our votes, and being careful who we exe. I have yet to play a game where the village wins, and I really want to see this be the first. 

[Mat]

Just when I got a post in before I went to sleep  

I, likewise, stand by myself and Striker's guess of four elims, and not just because I also was one of the QF48 elims . I think the conversion mechanic isn't strong enough to warrant three with a 17 players list. Striker's original reasoning is here:

Quote

I don't think I'd give the elims only 3 members to start off with. That's a very small number, compared to the overall size of the game, to bank on them getting an extra member by killing the spy. I'd say it's probably more likely that the elims would start off with 4 members, which is around 25% (a little less). Finding and killing the spy isn't necessarily an easy task (unless the spy is like me in that one game where I accidentally outed myself...), so it would feel odd to base the distribution around the elims needing to find that one player to get to normal levels of numbers for an elim team. Though, do the elims need to kill the spy themselves, or do they get the conversion if the spy dies at all?

 

1 hour ago, Archer said:

Hey, all! Let me know if I’m using this new voting terminology correctly. I propose removing Snipexe. Snip has been exed. Snip.exe has stopped working. Nailed it.  

Terminology is good, though poke votes- I'm assuming that's what this is- typically are placed one someone who hasn't posted yet. Though I could definitely see you making an exception to that for the pun  

8 hours ago, Snipexe said:

Hello, one and all. I'm considering Rping, but I think at least at the moment I'd rather focus on writing in-game related things. We'll see how many posts I get up this cycle, and go from there I guess. Anyway, I'm not going to drop a poke vote yet, but depending on how many people show up by midday tomorrow I'll probably drop one then.

This rings slightly off to me; it sorta seems vague and is a lot of 'I'm maybe gonna do this...' I've never played with you before though and as far as I know you could start out every game like this regardless of alignment.

15 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

So... uh... I mean, I know better at this point than to expect us to hit an elim with the C1 exe, but we should aim for that. And starting next cycle, we really need to focus on providing detailed explanations for our votes, and being careful who we exe. I have yet to play a game where the village wins, and I really want to see this be the first. 

Always assume the exe will hit an elim C1. Always.  

[Snipexe]

13 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

This rings slightly off to me; it sorta seems vague and is a lot of 'I'm maybe gonna do this...' I've never played with you before though and as far as I know you could start out every game like this regardless of alignment.

That’s definitely fair. It’s not a case of play style like you think, rather I’m not sure how much has changed regarding play the beginning of games. 
I like how you called me out on this. It’s direct and to the point, unlike the ambivalence I was called out for

1 hour ago, Archer said:

Hey, all! Let me know if I’m using this new voting terminology correctly. I propose removing Snipexe. Snip has been exed. Snip.exe has stopped working. Nailed it.  

Snip.exe has crashed  (but yes this is correct formatting and the like. Though traditional poke votes tend to be before the player votes, consider me poked. If this was a legit vote, then carry on)

[xinoehp512]

Huh. 

Well, I kind of used up my usual talking quota last round. :P. Oh well. Guess I'll have to start over.

I personally find it more likely there are 3 elims, but I will defer to the people who have been playing recently. And I agree it's better to overestimate than underestimate.

[Mat]

2 minutes ago, Snipexe said:

That’s definitely fair. It’s not a case of play style like you think, rather I’m not sure how much has changed regarding play the beginning of games. 
I like how you called me out on this. It’s direct and to the point, unlike the ambivalence I was called out for

Haha yeah that's a fair reason. From what I've seen reading older games the meta has changed a bit (...or maybe a lot, depending on what) so this makes sense. I almost didn't call you out, it seemed such a small thing. I'm glad I did though, now I know the reasoning behind the post.

I'll poke Dannex. Come and play, @Dannex! 

[StrikerEZ]

Whelp, that’s unfortunate. Anyway, like Mat said, I still stand by what I said about the distribution. I don’t think there’d only be three elims. That just seems like way too few to me.

Also, I’ll poke vote Ventyl. Because he hasn’t shown up yet.

[Ookla-son-son-Ventyl]

2 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

Whelp, that’s unfortunate. Anyway, like Mat said, I still stand by what I said about the distribution. I don’t think there’d only be three elims. That just seems like way too few to me.

Also, I’ll poke vote Ventyl. Because he hasn’t shown up yet.

Hey, wait a minute! That’s not nice, I even told I was reading the first time this cycle was run to see what happened...

[Liranil]

I'll go ahead and jump and mention that I probably won't be too active until after Christmas. I'm still getting used to how these games work, but I definitely think it's better to overestimate the number of elims.

[Quintessential]

36 minutes ago, Ventyl said:

Hey, wait a minute! That’s not nice, I even told I was reading the first time this cycle was run to see what happened...

:/ when did you say that?

[Mat]

Yeah, I probably won't be active that much tomorrow and the 25th. Today is likely normal, and the 26th should be back on track.

1 minute ago, Quinn0928 said:

:/ when did you say that?

They're siblings, so I assume IRL at some point.

 

[Quintessential]

1 minute ago, Matrim's Dice said:

They're siblings, so I assume IRL at some point.

Oh. That makes sense lol apologies, Ventyl, for my temporary mild suspicion of you.

[Guest Breaker]

Hello, Sanderson Elimination players.

This is my first game, and I'd like to take the time to introduce myself. I'm Breaker, I've not been around much in the community, and I read Skyward and began Starsight to join Gears' game on request. People have tried to recruit me to Sanderson Elimination for years, and I hope this goes well. Here's hoping we have an excellent game. 

Looking over the rules of the game a few minutes ago (maybe should have done that at the time of application), I noticed a concerning clause in the rules for us to be careful with. Tied execution votes result in a double kill. This is dangerous for Our Glorious Department (of Species Integration; get your mind out of the gutters, you filthy genociders), since the DPS are more capable of controlling votes for forced ties, and it's a good way for them to mask extra kills. We should, therefore, consider the following: avoid close votes, offer our best arguments and consensuses before making major votes, and slow voting when votes appear in danger of tying. Ties can be fruitfully orchestrated, but it is likely to end poorly while the DPS have a large faction. 

It might be concerning for me to mention the enemy's access to this strategy, except that I must assume they are more experienced than I. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Breaker

[Mat]

Welcome Breaker!

5 minutes ago, Breaker said:

since the DPS are more capable of controlling votes for forced ties

Actually I think the village, DSI, are more capable of controlling the vote because of our larger numbers. The elims can calculate their votes more, but we have greater numbers and largely control who gets exed unless it gets very close. So as you said, avoiding ties would probably be nice. Out of any cycle to have a tie though, C1 would be the best.

7 minutes ago, Breaker said:

It might be concerning for me to mention the enemy's access to this strategy, except that I must assume they are more experienced than I. 

Brainstorming elim strats isn't the greatest look, but I doubt an elim would post in-thread their thoughts. Those likely would go straight into their doc. So in this case I don't think it reflects evil of you.

I think that was an impressive starting post. Looking forward to playing through the game with you!

[Quintessential]

15 minutes ago, Breaker said:

Hello, Sanderson Elimination players.

This is my first game, and I'd like to take the time to introduce myself. I'm Breaker, I've not been around much in the community, and I read Skyward and began Starsight to join Gears' game on request. People have tried to recruit me to Sanderson Elimination for years, and I hope this goes well. Here's hoping we have an excellent game. 

Looking over the rules of the game a few minutes ago (maybe should have done that at the time of application), I noticed a concerning clause in the rules for us to be careful with. Tied execution votes result in a double kill. This is dangerous for Our Glorious Department (of Species Integration; get your mind out of the gutters, you filthy genociders), since the DPS are more capable of controlling votes for forced ties, and it's a good way for them to mask extra kills. We should, therefore, consider the following: avoid close votes, offer our best arguments and consensuses before making major votes, and slow voting when votes appear in danger of tying. Ties can be fruitfully orchestrated, but it is likely to end poorly while the DPS have a large faction. 

It might be concerning for me to mention the enemy's access to this strategy, except that I must assume they are more experienced than I. 

Welcome to SE, Breaker! 

Yes, I noticed that clause in the rules as well, though it's perhaps not as big of a deal as it seems. My first game (and only elim-game so far) was QF48, which had the same rule about ties, and we never actually had a tie that game. Admittedly, that was because I and my fellow elims weren't put into a position where it was necessary for us to exe multiple players (that was the same game where there were more of us than anyone thought there should be).

On the other hand, though...

5 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Actually I think the village, DSI, are more capable of controlling the vote because of our larger numbers. The elims can calculate their votes more, but we have greater numbers and largely control who gets exed unless it gets very close. So as you said, avoiding ties would probably be nice. Out of any cycle to have a tie though, C1 would be the best.

From what I've seen in the games I've played, the elims typically have access to a vote-manip, and with the Cambric's completely anonymous vote 

Edit: posted too soon hold on

With the anonymous Cambric vote, the elims could easily manipulate a close exe to be a tie. So looking at it that way, it's a reasonable concern, and we should avoid close exes if possible. Then again, we always say that, and it doesn't always... work out that way. *cough*LG72 D1-D3*cough*

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Quinn0928

[Guest Breaker]

I'd have to agree that C1 is the best time to tie, fishing for value. I'd say that DPS does have the edge in ties, however, since it allows them to co-ordinate a tie whenever we are close to one, turning our chaos into their order. This plan can be achieved safely, since there are two viable targets, and without all the DPS showing their hand by all agreeing, which causes more chaos for us. Therefore, I do believe ties are their weapon. 

 

2 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

With the anonymous Cambric vote, the elims could easily manipulate a close lynch to be a tie.

Another dangerous concern, yes. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Breaker

[Mat]

Just now, Breaker said:

I'd have to agree that C1 is the best time to tie, fishing for value. I'd say that DPS does have the edge in ties, however, since it allows them to co-ordinate a tie whenever we are close to one, turning our chaos into their order. This plan can be achieved safely, since there are two viable targets, and without all the DPS showing their hand by all agreeing, which causes more chaos for us. Therefore, I do believe ties are their weapon. 

At the same time, it can be obvious if a tie suddenly comes in force and both parties flip village. The person(s) involved in the tying would be looked at and I don't think the elims would risk that early on. They definitely want a tie, but wouldn't say that outright or go to great lengths to create one for the shade it would throw on them.

2 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

With the anonymous Cambric vote, the elims could easily manipulate a close lynch to be a tie.

This, though, is a legitimate worry. We should be cautious of an elim Cambric; one of those would make it much easier for the elims to use Breaker's worry.

[Araris Valerian]

32 minutes ago, Breaker said:

Looking over the rules of the game a few minutes ago (maybe should have done that at the time of application), I noticed a concerning clause in the rules for us to be careful with. Tied execution votes result in a double kill. This is dangerous for Our Glorious Department (of Species Integration; get your mind out of the gutters, you filthy genociders), since the DPS are more capable of controlling votes for forced ties, and it's a good way for them to mask extra kills. We should, therefore, consider the following: avoid close votes, offer our best arguments and consensuses before making major votes, and slow voting when votes appear in danger of tying. Ties can be fruitfully orchestrated, but it is likely to end poorly while the DPS have a large faction.

While I appreciate the sentiment here, a double execution isn't necessarily a bad thing. For starters, in past games, players who are voted on D1 tend to get voted out later if they don't die the first time around, so a double execute saves us a future execution. Also, the vote is where the village has power. So by executing multiple people at once, we get proportionally greater power over the elims. If we force the elims to reveal themselves to manipulate the vote, all the better. That's half the point of executing people in the first place.

[Guest Breaker]

Fair point; doubles are a tool, so long as we truly control them. I merely fear we may not, but I mean not to pressure you back on this.

 

Also, and, I truly do not mean this as a threat, but I was warned you were dangerous.

[Mat]

Just now, Breaker said:

Also, and, I truly do not mean this as a threat, but I was warned you were dangerous.

By whom?

[Araris Valerian]

6 minutes ago, Breaker said:

Fair point; doubles are a tool, so long as we truly control them. I merely fear we may not, but I mean not to pressure you back on this.

 

Also, and, I truly do not mean this as a threat, but I was warned you were dangerous.

Hmm. I don't consider myself dangerous. Rather, I am a strong supporter of Safety (PM Safety, in particular). And of course I'll happily murder anyone that I think is making the game a less Safe place to be .