Anniversary Game 8 / AN11: Back to Beginnings

[Chartreuse Penguin]

5 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

Care to explain why? It is hard to respond to a vote on oneself that does not have a stated reason for it.

Simple wanted to gauge your reaction is all

Edited January 5, 2022 by Chartreuse Penguin
Oops I completely forgot about my CR :P :P :P :P

[Pearl Chameleon]

1 minute ago, Saffron Iguana said:

Two votes is hardly a done deal. If you'd be willing to vote for me if you weren't the leading target, I'd rather you do that than vote strategically in self-preservation early. No sense arbitrarily limiting your options just yet.

*shrug* i've always felt that it's better to vote in a way that makes your vote most likely to result in an exe. so, by joining a tie, my vote is at least somewhat more likely to result in an exe than if i vote on someone who doesn't have any votes on them. that make sense??

2 minutes ago, Chartreuse Penguin said:

Simple wanted to gauge your reaction is all

uhhh, okay. i hope my reaction was satisfactory hehehe

[Violet Axolotl]

27 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

I am not voting on Gorilla because I am not suspicious of him. I do not trust him either, but that is no reason to condemn him right now.

I feel like this post misses the whole “guilty until proven innocent” thing we have going on here.

---

As the day progressed into afternoon, more of the residents and visitors in Tyrian Falls occasioned Dyring’s Inn, which gave Dyring plenty chance to get a feel for the mood of the townsfolk. As of yet, except for his push against the unruly “game show host”, Dyring hadn’t really spoken his thoughts. Unfortunately, there was just too much cleaning to do, and as of yet, nobody had taken up his offer of work. He figured that would change come nightfall, when the visiting folks realized they were hungry and lacking a bed. In the meantime, Dyring did his best to keep the stack of dishes from taking over the sink, and the thirsty customers from taking over his common room.

[Salmon Meerkat]

16 minutes ago, Coral Swan said:

Because I, as an elim, would take the time to craft a completely made-up reads list and not bother to actually stay true to it because obviously no one would think anything of me not voting someone I marked as Spiked! Makes sense to me  Or maybe I made a list and then didn't feel good about it, posted it anyway, and voted elsewhere.

hmm. ok, u know what

i buy that w/ some salt. i think this is a more significant point later in the game when u have a more firmed up reads list and r forced to find suspicious players sus but also don't want to vote them - that's what found us Heron in Steel's LG when Elan (of all people!) pointed out Heron consistently claimed Tuatara was sus but refused to vote on Tuatara but i m not sure it is of necessity damning early on b/c u have no reason for reluctance as e/e with hyena

hyena is not under significant pressure - i grant 1 existing vote (at that time thanks to Penguin) but Cham was leading @ 3 votes so going hyena would not necessarily have been a big deal + u could always pull off later anyway

people do that plus the situation can be so mutable

i guess one scenario i could see u all being boxed in are if u-cham-hyena are all elim but...idk how much weight i'd put on that

10 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

I see that post as more you wanting to look like you are contributing to the game and making reads without wanting to commit to the reads. An elim would know whether or not their elim reads are true or not. And if you have mostly villagers in your elim reads, it could look bad if you vote for them and they flip village. But if you vote on a null player (in your opinion) and they flip village? You can simply claim that you were just trying to weed out the null players and it did not turn out for you. Does that make sense?

yes - but i feel this is ... a strange take b/c a lot of players will mislynch at least once in the game despite being a villager and that sort of badness is fairly ok esp early on in the game

basically most elims don't feel the need to explicitly say they r going for the nulls as a way to deflect attention so y would elim swan feel the need to do that

i'll be honest this is probably gonna make me chunk swan back into my nulls out of sheer force of indecision but after some thought i am just not feeling the force of the existing arguments as strongly as i was - i don't think this is a good parallel to the Elan & Heron case

[Coral Swan]

26 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

I see that post as more you wanting to look like you are contributing to the game and making reads without wanting to commit to the reads. An elim would know whether or not their elim reads are true or not. And if you have mostly villagers in your elim reads, it could look bad if you vote for them and they flip village. But if you vote on a null player (in your opinion) and they flip village? You can simply claim that you were just trying to weed out the null players and it did not turn out for you. Does that make sense?

Ha, I thought you were going to say that you thought I stuck my teammates lower and didn't want to kill them. You instead said the opposite, which makes much less sense to me as a reason. If I were an elim I wouldn't be worried about that, it'd be my goal. Elims wants to end up voting villagers, just as long as there's a reason them to do so. I'm sure you agree that there was enough of my own reasoning to vote Hyena or Gorilla when I made that list, but I didn't want to.

Whereas an elim putting teammates as elim reads makes sense in the case of not voting elim reads, but you can't claim that as reasoning since I thought of it.

Edit: Ninja'd by Meerkat who said that much more eloquently than I did. Praise the Ja!

26 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

And honestly? I think I would read you as more of a villager if you had acquiesced and voted on someone you truly suspect. As it is right now, your insistence on not voting on someone you truly suspect feels like you are trying to hold to your opinion since people have called me out for getting defensive. Perhaps I am simply too paranoid.

It's not that I don't suspect Dingo. It's a bit of an issue in how I marked my tiers; Null can be spilt into Null+, True Null, and Null-, and Dingo is definitely in a solid Null- for me.

That was a bit of a trick question from me because in my mind, a hot take immediately withdrawn because it's put under fire is suspicious. I was decently sure that opinion was held by just about everybody so I figured you'd answer opposite the way you did. And the bolded section I just have no clue what it means

Praise the Ja!

Edited January 5, 2022 by Coral Swan

[Salmon Meerkat]

12 minutes ago, Coral Swan said:

Edit: Ninja'd by Meerkat who said that much more eloquently than I did. Praise the Ja!

31 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

pls stop celebrating i m not sure i trust u i said w/ salt this just removes the main reason i had to distrust u but then u return to a default state of squint-eyed distrust

[Coral Swan]

2 minutes ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

pls stop celebrating i m not sure i trust u i said w/ salt this just removes the main reason i had to distrust u but then u return to a default state of squint-eyed distrust

I praise the Ja regardless of the content of the sentence before it.

[Meaning I stick the phrase at the end of every post, and so when I edited it, the edit became the last thing I typed in that post, and so it needed a new PtJ. Truly had nothing to do with your post, I'm aware of your position on me.]

Praise the Ja!

[Pearl Chameleon]

I am very upset. I refreshed the page so I could see Meerkat's newest post and lost the post I was working on. To summarize my thoughts: I did in fact consider the possibility of Swan putting some of their fellow elims in their elim reads being the reason for why they voted on a null read instead. I am confused by what Axolotl means with the "guilty until proven innocent." And I know that elims want to kill villagers, but they end up doing so with faulty reasoning. Which Swan's vote felt like it had faulty reasoning to me.

[Coral Swan]

6 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

And I know that elims want to kill villagers, but they end up doing so with faulty reasoning. Which Swan's vote felt like it had faulty reasoning to me.

That's an unfair generalization to elims, I think  They're more than capable of coming up with decent reasoning, otherwise they wouldn't win games. And villagers are more than capable of coming up with faulty reasoning, otherwise they wouldn't lose games :P.

Praise the Ja!

Edited January 5, 2022 by Coral Swan

[Salmon Meerkat]

21 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

And I know that elims want to kill villagers, but they end up doing so with faulty reasoning. Which Swan's vote felt like it had faulty reasoning to me.

i think my stumbling block and what i am struggling to follow here is that they don't always invariably end up doing so with faulty reasoning - sometimes villagers will really look v bad and i have had very bad games where i honestly wouldn't blame village for mislynching me b/c i misplayed and misread everything

i feel like an elim directing a lynch on me in such a game would be using good reasoning - it would just be GIGO

but i think the real point im struggling with is it just feels very contrived or counterproductive and requires swan to have what is to me a v. weird calculus as an elim - why not take it on the chin? y not just go for hyena? y hesitate? it's bad reasoning but i don't see how an elim benefits from this bad reasoning process so y would elim swan do this

my even bigger problem is my main answer to a scenario in which evil swan hesitates to go after evil hyena also has u being evil b/c suppose u r village - e swan voting e hyena is great, it's distancing n u die or u lead the lynch and the heat will go to everyone on the mislynch, myself included

what does evil swan gain by refusing to go on hyena? evil swan had said they distrusted hyena, they vote evil hyena, they gain distance, u get fire, it's a good scenario 4 the elims

again and again i come back to the conclusion that the main way it makes sense 2 me is if u r evil so swan doesn't have good options n idk how committed i m to u, swan, hyena all being e together

>edit

at risk of further chaos - Gorilla, Hyena

im interested in y u feel the need to call attention to the fact u began ur readslist prior to the game starting

Edited January 5, 2022 by Salmon Meerkat

[Chartreuse Penguin]

15 minutes ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

at risk of further chaos - Gorilla, Hyena

im interested in y u feel the need to call attention to the fact u began ur readslist prior to the game starting

Aw hell yea let’s goo 

[Violet Axolotl]

28 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

I am confused by what Axolotl means with the "guilty until proven innocent."

*Dyring vigorously cleans a dirty glass*

Basically, you should be comfortable killing anyone until they give you a good reason not to. Early on I think you need to provide more justification to abstain from voting on a player than you do to place a vote on them.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Violet Axolotl

[Pearl Chameleon]

Just now, Violet Axolotl said:

Basically, you should be comfortable killing anyone until they give you a good reason not to. Early on I think you need to provide more justification to abstain from voting on a player than you do to place a vote on them.

that is honestly just such a weird take to me. it feels just...like, i've always thought it makes more sense to expect people to give more reasoning for why they're voting for someone than why they're not voting for someone. and no, i wouldn't be comfortable killing anyone randomly, because most players in the game are village!

[Coral Swan]

Nah let's go on Chameleon

Let's be clear, this has nothing to do with the discussion I had with Chameleon about me holding my ground. I was happy to hold my ground in the safety of Dingo, but I'm happier on a suspect I have clearer reasoning for. Confidence was restored, you could say, by their recent posts.

Praise the Ja!

[Chartreuse Penguin]

1 minute ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

that is honestly just such a weird take to me. it feels just...like, i've always thought it makes more sense to expect people to give more reasoning for why they're voting for someone than why they're not voting for someone. and no, i wouldn't be comfortable killing anyone randomly, because most players in the game are village!

I think their point is that to villagers starting off, every other player essentially holds the same unknown alignment, so voting one way or another for villagers shouldn’t matter too significantly D1. For elims on the other hand, they already know everyone’s alignment so they’ll inherently have a bias in who they’re comfortable placing their votes on.

[Pearl Chameleon]

1 minute ago, Chartreuse Penguin said:

I think their point is that to villagers starting off, every other player essentially holds the same unknown alignment, so voting one way or another for villagers shouldn’t matter too significantly D1. For elims on the other hand, they already know everyone’s alignment so they’ll inherently have a bias in who they’re comfortable placing their votes on.

What I have been saying for so long about Swan is that I think they have had this bias about who they wanted to vote on, since they did not initially vote where their elim reads were. Does that make sense?

@Coral Swan What about my recent posts has confirmed your suspicions of me? Is it just that I have different opinions about the behaviors of elims and the ways in which players will interact with the game?

[Violet Axolotl]

7 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

that is honestly just such a weird take to me. it feels just...like, i've always thought it makes more sense to expect people to give more reasoning for why they're voting for someone than why they're not voting for someone. and no, i wouldn't be comfortable killing anyone randomly, because most players in the game are village!

*The glass shatters, so Dyring goes to fetch a broom*

I got ninja'd by Penguin, who is very correct. The entire usefulness of the Vote hinges upon that distinction.

Edited January 5, 2022 by Violet Axolotl
for Clarity

[Chartreuse Penguin]

3 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

What I have been saying for so long about Swan is that I think they have had this bias about who they wanted to vote on, since they did not initially vote where their elim reads were. Does that make sense?

It makes sense, yeah, but what doesn’t make a lot of sense is for them to list the player as suspicious in the first place, imo

[Pearl Chameleon]

Just now, Chartreuse Penguin said:

It makes sense, yeah, but what doesn’t make a lot of sense is for them to list the player as suspicious in the first place, imo

I mean, the reasoning for that could just be that they wanted to look like they were trying to solve the game. 

6 minutes ago, Violet Axolotl said:

I got ninja'd by Penguin, who is very correct. The entire usefulness of the Vote hinges upon that distinction.

I guess I simply fundamentally disagree about how villagers should treat their votes, especially before they have solid reads on most players. I have never been okay with just voting on anyone in previous games. I always try to find reasons to vote for players, even if those reasons may not be understandable to others or are me reaching for a reason to vote. 

[Coral Swan]

2 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

@Coral Swan What about my recent posts has confirmed your suspicions of me? Is it just that I have different opinions about the behaviors of elims and the ways in which players will interact with the game?

I typically don't like to suspect people for having a different opinion than I do. In this case, it's just a... lot of differing opinions together that all seem to be you trying to justify your vote on me when you initially just piggybacked off what other people said.

I'll be afk for an hour or so but will be back to answer any further interrogations put forth

Praise the Ja!

[Salmon Meerkat]

5 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

I mean, the reasoning for that could just be that they wanted to look like they were trying to solve the game. 

ok but why not follow through?

hyena was not in danger. it was early in the cycle. on that line of reasoning there is absolutely nothing to lose voting hyena if as u propose they are e/e unless u are e too.

if we suppose swan wanted to appear to be solving the game n u propose swan didn't want to follow through, what would've stopped swan from following through? what is the opportunity cost? y wouldn't evil swan do so? 

swan hyena could be e/v but then there is no difference anyway: swan would then be indifferent between hyena and anyone else.

>edit i'll be honest i think u r set against swan n i'm not trying to convince u b/c i don't think it's going to happen at this stage i m trying to convince myself or see if anyone has a better take b/c a decent chunk of this scenario doesn't make sense to me and i want to get a solid read of what is going on with ur train and with swan

the more i read the thread the more i have a negative gut read of u and swan both so that's another problem for me as i feel u both are hyperdefensive which tends to occur more with elims 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Salmon Meerkat

[Chartreuse Penguin]

Charcoal Hyena

[Pearl Chameleon]

4 minutes ago, Coral Swan said:

I typically don't like to suspect people for having a different opinion than I do. In this case, it's just a... lot of differing opinions together that all seem to be you trying to justify your vote on me when you initially just piggybacked off what other people said.

I'll be afk for an hour or so but will be back to answer any further interrogations put forth

Praise the Ja!

do i really seem to be having a bunch of different opinions?? wack

and i did not just piggy back off of what other people said. i decided i was going to vote on you when i first read your post. i just read it after a bunch of other people had posted, so it looks like mine came much later and must be following their thoughts

3 minutes ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

ok but why not follow through?

hyena was not in danger. it was early in the cycle. on that line of reasoning there is absolutely nothing to lose voting hyena if as u propose they are e/e unless u are e too.

if we suppose swan wanted to appear to be solving the game n u propose swan didn't want to follow through, what would've stopped swan from following through? what is the opportunity cost? y wouldn't evil swan do so? 

swan hyena could be e/v but then there is no difference anyway: swan would then be indifferent between hyena and anyone else.

i'm not sure why they wouldn't follow through. the thoughts and reasonings for an elim are mysterious

sigh

i think i'm just confusing myself. i might not vote swan after all. maybe i should try and reread everything to make some new opinions and also remember what some people have said because man oh man is it hard to remember who has said what

[Violet Axolotl]

2 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

I guess I simply fundamentally disagree about how villagers should treat their votes, especially before they have solid reads on most players. I have never been okay with just voting on anyone in previous games. I always try to find reasons to vote for players, even if those reasons may not be understandable to others or are me reaching for a reason to vote. 

I guess my point would be that you can't vote better than the material you are given to base your vote on. The material is extremely poor D1, so nearly all (village) votes are no better than random. There's no getting around it, so we might as well embrace that, rather than delude ourselves that the person we vote out today is actually likely to be an eliminator, or at least more so than the base 20-25% chance.

[Pearl Chameleon]

1 minute ago, Violet Axolotl said:

I guess my point would be that you can't vote better than the material you are given to base your vote on. The material is extremely poor D1, so nearly all (village) votes are no better than random. There's no getting around it, so we might as well embrace that, rather than delude ourselves that the person we vote out today is actually likely to be an eliminator, or at least more so than the base 20-25% chance.

wow that's such a...sad view

you do you, i guess