Quick Fix Game 70: Infernal Affairs

[Stick.]

the truth is i am in class... lol

4 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Would also like to know why Neil thinks you'd be all over Royal - I seem to remember you keep saying you despise purity reads.

uhhh i think what neil means is that it thinks i often just take village claims at face value. what he doesnt know is that i dont actually do that (wow!) - i v!read village claims that are villagery. This village claim by royalbee was elimmy. There's a difference!!

[DrakeMarshall]

55 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

I don't think that's a disagreement with what I'm saying - I'm saying that saying I don't care about whether I get voted out doesn't mean I don't care about the argument. Illwei thought my arguing meant I cared about the vote - I didn't. I cared about the grounds for the vote because I thought it was bad. (And I disliked the fact it ignored I had, at that point, actually contributed to the game, albeit in a format of pure suffering, whereas others hadn't.)

Whether or not I have a higher tendency to do that for votes that target me doesn't change the fact that my issue is with the reasons rather than the outcome. It just means that you can't assert I attack all bad arguments, just some - but that still boils down to taking exception to the argument rather than the outcome.

Well, sure, but I think we'd agree that it likely isn't simply explained by taking exception purely at the way the logic of an argument fits together, because if that were the case, you'd equally pursue such arguments when you saw them made against others.

You can certainly maintain on some level that you don't care particularly about the outcome of getting executed while you do care particularly about arguments made against your person.

And that's fair. Although at some point, it seems that getting executed comes part-and-parcel with having arguments made against you. You can of course draw a circle around the outcome of dying and say "I don't care about that part" and this would likely be true, but in some manner you likely do take exception to the whole of what "being the person who gets executed" entails. Just not the dying part particularly.

55 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

That's kind of my point too, which I still feel you are missing, though maybe the thread will yell at us for carrying on with this.

They will.

We could bet on it

55 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

I feel that asking whether it's worth it doesn't abrogate the question of whether the player is putting in - at minimum - basic expected effort. (Even if this doesn't matter to you as a criterion, it matters to me, since I blew up at the Village last round for it, and this directly led to my opting out of playing seriously in LG95 after the cremshow that was LG94.)

So my point isn't about who is trying hard enough - it's just that "I am asserting I have fulfilled the basic duty at present, therefore I can really just ask if it is worth trying to change that." I do think it is materially relevant to ask if you are or are not at least fulfilling the basic expected effort threshold - that's the entire point of the playstyle rule still requiring you to be prosocial.

I don't think it abrogates asking that question of yourself, but I do think it somewhat abrogates further talking about it with the other person. Depending on how you answer the first question, you've potentially decided that it's not worth the particular effort needed to get on the same page with that person. What is an argument, if not making a particular effort to get on the same page with someone who you currently really aren't? (There are different kinds of arguments to persuade onlookers, but I don't think those are relevant here, as they somewhat presuppose that the onlookers actually care about what's being said )

So yes, you can argue that you've fulfilled your duty, but if you've already decided it's not worth convincing Neil that you're town then why is it worth convincing Neil that you've fulfilled your duty? The only reasons I can think of to answer that is that either you're really just processing the question out loud, or that convincing people of the second thing is more important than convincing people of the first thing. Idk.

...On the other hand, if the answer to 'is it worth it' is 'yes', then on some level this implies you should probably just put in more effort, even if it's the other person's fault, even if you've already done your duty well enough. Because that's kind of what it means for something to be worth it.

So, yes.

To me, the question 'is it worth it to do more' is in fact more important than 'am I doing enough.'

At the end of the day this is partly a difference in priority

You are a much more dutiful and conscientous person than I am

But I do think my view on the subject is not without merits.

48 minutes ago, neil the beguiled said:

get him I love my havarti and will kill for it

##vote draje 

i too love your havarti and will also kill for it

##vote neil the eel

48 minutes ago, neil the beguiled said:

okay puppy can you fetch the reasons why you think that?

Archer smells Evil

41 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Edited to add: Tempted to conclude from Stick's increased reticence that she isn't in a doc this time...

I disagree tbh

on the basis that idk if Stick is really any more reticent I think the rest of us are just being louder

and also on the basis that being less talky because you have more important crem to work through in the doc is real (edit; yes you've explained why this is less the case for Stick, but 'this correlation does not seem as strong with Stick as with others' != 'there is an anticorrelation in Stick's case' so I still disagree)

17 minutes ago, Stick. said:

the truth is i am in class... lol

uhhh i think what neil means is that it thinks i often just take village claims at face value. what he doesnt know is that i dont actually do that (wow!) - i v!read village claims that are villagery. This village claim by royalbee was elimmy. There's a difference!!

im village

Edited February 14 by DrakeMarshall

[neil the beguiled]

btw I can’t sleep but I dont want to provide real input but my least favourite thing ( said with love <3.) about playing with Kas is looking up new words in the middle of trying to read like wadda hell!!!!!!

edit:

@stick. I’m mafia :curtain:

edit2:

if you dont think I make sense here imagine being my professor grading the submissions I’m turning in rn >.>

edit3:

wow im obvtown 

Edited February 14 by neil the beguiled

[Kasimir]

31 minutes ago, Stick. said:

the truth is i am in class... lol

this was anti-climactic but i understand

31 minutes ago, Stick. said:

i v!read village claims that are villagery. This village claim by royalbee was elimmy. There's a difference!!

That difference being?

Also before I forget: JNV.

25 minutes ago, DrakeMarshall said:

Well, sure, but I think we'd agree that it likely isn't simply explained by taking exception purely at the way the logic of an argument fits together, because if that were the case, you'd equally pursue such arguments when you saw them made against others.

Sure, but we're back to necessary and sufficient conditions. It's necessary that I find the argument a bad one - it doesn't have to be sufficient. You're making the sufficiency statement which I don't disagree with. All I hold is the necessity statement. Sometimes I think it's actually a good argument, in which case I shrug and acknowledge it - cf. Szeth and Araris, though Araris was Evil and therefore actually being insincere

25 minutes ago, DrakeMarshall said:

but in some manner you likely do take exception to the whole of what "being the person who gets executed" entails. Just not the dying part particularly.

Yes and no I think - if you want to contend that the entailment also involves the claims/arguments made, in which case, sure, but I've also already specified I just really don't care about the outcome and don't care about getting exed, so saying this is really just doing a conceptual redefinition to the point it's not the concept I was picking out with my original statement to begin with.

25 minutes ago, DrakeMarshall said:

We could bet on it

On

25 minutes ago, DrakeMarshall said:

What is an argument, if not making a particular effort to get on the same page with someone who you currently really aren't?

...It's about trying to arrive at a hopefully-veredical answer? I mean, the issue with this is that arguments are often more about logic than per se rhetoric. We can go back to the whole necessary/sufficient conditions issue again, sure, but if I just cared to persuade, I'd be leaning more into rhetoric than I was.

There's also the aspect where clarifying your position in a dispute need not be aiming to persuade so much as to set the record clear.

25 minutes ago, DrakeMarshall said:

but I do think it somewhat abrogates further talking about it with the other person.

Honestly in this particular case, it was more to ease my conscience and also to be less aggressive about it - again, refer to my beliefs about doing the basic Village work. I just feel it's kind of harsh to slam the door at "No" especially when it became pretty apparent Neil was taking it as a total refusal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In your case, it was about clarifying my position rather than aiming to persuade anyone at all.

25 minutes ago, DrakeMarshall said:

why is it worth convincing Neil that you've fulfilled your duty?

I wasn't trying to convince him I'd fulfilled my duty - but clarifying that I had was, in my view, part of the contour of the disagreement that wasn't being gotten, cf. your coverage. I wasn't trying to convince Neil in particular I'd done it so much as to point out that again, it's one kind of situation if I came in, did nothing, and then asserted I didn't need to care to do any Village work, and another kind if I came in, did some basic thing, and then asserted I didn't care to do more. Again, positional clarification need not in itself aim to persuade.

You could try to hairsplit to say positional clarification aims to persuade that the clarified position is the correct way to read the dispute, in which case, fair enough, but then my stakes are simply not wanting to be misrepresented.

25 minutes ago, DrakeMarshall said:

The only reasons I can think of to answer that is that either you're really just processing the question out loud

In part. I sometimes argue to clarify my own thoughts on the matter, and that affects a lot of how I approach the thread when Village as compared to when Evil, but also, again, positional clarification. I think that recognising doing your basic duty matters also matters enough that it's worth actually clarifying that part of the position. Minimally, I think this recognition should be important enough to be a basic norm, and so is worth addressing/establishing, because it's germane to what kind of dispute this is, and what, tacitly, should be an acceptable dispute (on the level of norms rather than reads) and what shouldn't.

Edited to add:

4 minutes ago, neil the beguiled said:

btw I can’t sleep but I dont want to provide real input but my least favourite thing ( said with love <3.) about playing with Kas is looking up new words in the middle of trying to read like wadda hell!!!!!!

1 minute ago, Kasimir said:

...It's about trying to arrive at a hopefully-veredical answer?

RIP sir

Edited February 14 by Kasimir

[DrakeMarshall]

5 minutes ago, neil the beguiled said:

wow im obvtown 

hi obvtown im drake

[Kasimir]

Putting JNV thoughts elsewhere so people can skip the whole previous exchange with Drake more easily:

Admitting straight-up it's gut but also a sense that E!JNV just tends to be more participatory than JNV, and I did feel that was a very perfunctory check-in post from JNV. Agreed it could be the hour, but...man, IDK. I was divided about it earlier, but I think if forced, I'd probably come down just a tad more on the E side.

@JNV: Quokka Buddy - thoughts on Neil at this juncture?

[neil the beguiled]

i think kas is just making up words now

edit: also what’s the point of making bets in the open air when the rest of us can see and influence them

Edited February 14 by neil the beguiled

[Kasimir]

Edited to add:

Aaaaaand ruining the nice clean JNV post to say:

13 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

...It's about trying to arrive at a hopefully-veridical answer?

  Like yeah on some level I'm definitely a rationality snob. I like to think I got better about it over time compared to where I used to be when I started playing SE in that I bite back the impulse to think bad argument = wrong = Evil and so on. It's very much a thing that people will 'wrong formula right answer' a lot when it comes to finding Elims and the trick is knowing which is which. Being a good argument doesn't guarantee truth either. You can make pretty and elaborate arguments and still be wrong. But at core I still believe we try to get it right - V!read the Villagers, E!read the Elims, ML as rarely as possible, and just do our best. And at core I do believe having good arguments, testing them for holes, etc, is a generally (with asterisks given what I just said) good way to get there.

Certainly some of this is meta because it was about disputes but it's the same thing to me - I like arguments because putting thoughts in arguments, making arguments is how you test them, whether to destruction or otherwise. I think that's still a good recipe for hopefully-true or at least epistemically decent beliefs if you can at least BS test them first.

And that's just a long way of saying: "I think aloud in the thread a lot because TJ will swear at me if it goes into the GM PM."

Edited February 14 by Kasimir

[neil the beguiled]

i still don’t think that’s a real word

edit: apparently my phone lied to me it is real

Edited February 14 by neil the beguiled

[Stick.]

these are some of the most NAI village claims ive seen in my entire life smh do better

13 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

That difference being?

 

Spoiler

gut pings  

 

[Kasimir]

2 minutes ago, neil the beguiled said:

i still don’t think that’s a real word

edit: apparently my phone lied to me it is real

Veridical? Yeah it is, I just misspelled it as it's been a bunch of years since I had to use it in a paper.

Just now, Stick. said:

these are some of the most NAI village claims ive seen in my entire life smh do better

 

  Reveal hidden contents

gut pings  

 

SIS SMH

can u give me a bit more to work with pls

Edited to add:

I geddit if u don't wanna I'm just considering how I feel about Royal and drawing a lot of ???s due to the behavioural divergence here so IDK if you are seeing something I'm not.

[Stick.]

well, compare royalbee's entrance last game to their entrance this game

they entered with a vote last time, on the offensive 

this time the first thing they say is no pls im most definitely NOT evil, on the defence by default

ive decided i want to pocket neil so it can be village now. kas and drake are also probably villagers or at least not informed elims

[Kasimir]

50 minutes ago, DrakeMarshall said:

and also on the basis that being less talky because you have more important crem to work through in the doc is real (edit; yes you've explained why this is less the case for Stick, but 'this correlation does not seem as strong with Stick as with others' != 'there is an anticorrelation in Stick's case' so I still disagree)

Fair, but if you're pulling the important crem hypothesis, then you are basically more or less committed to a set of <Archer, Faerie????, Aeo> with little else - at this hour, or even marginally before that, there's little else that could conceivably drag Stick's attention this far off. Maybe bake Neil back in but given the three of us have been having an ongoing thing in the thread, I don't feel doc presence is as viable. Perhaps you can but I can't hold both an argument like this, and handle important doc crem at the same time. Stick's timezone being fairly unique does have certain advantages.

4 minutes ago, Stick. said:

well, compare royalbee's entrance last game to their entrance this game

they entered with a vote last time, on the offensive 

this time the first thing they say is no pls im most definitely NOT evil, on the defence by default

Fair, I can see that. I'll remind myself to compare to the explanations later, assuming I hadn't already excluded them from the Insider set last game and so didn't ask.

Edited to add:

I guess what I'm saying is that if it's important doc crem that can't wait, it probably almost certainly entails E!Stick's docmates would have to be present. Stick would otherwise not feel so pressured to be present there. It's not impossible but I still don't favour that hypothesis due to who the set would be - but anyway I also think it's a moot point given she just said she was in class, and wouldn't have excluded her from being the Insider anyway

Edited February 14 by Kasimir

[neil the beguiled]

stick can i pocket you back?

[Stick.]

no

[Kasimir]

2 minutes ago, Stick. said:

no

Spoiler

 

[DrakeMarshall]

57 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Yes and no I think - if you want to contend that the entailment also involves the claims/arguments made, in which case, sure, but I've also already specified I just really don't care about the outcome and don't care about getting exed, so saying this is really just doing a conceptual redefinition to the point it's not the concept I was picking out with my original statement to begin with.

Well

Question:

if someone argued against you, you counter-argued, and then they unvoted you, would the fact that they unvoted you make you feel better

like you're right that it doesn't really interface with your original statement about outcomes, that on some level it's even misinterpreting your original statement, but you see why people might press X to doubt, right? because the thing you don't care about is very very adjacent to something you in fact clearly do care about

so yes your original statement is technically 100% true but perhaps somewhat misleading

edit: like it'd be one thing to say 'i don't care about getting exed i do care about getting accused' but just saying 'i don't care about getting exed' and leaving it at that feels by implication like you are saying you don't really care about the situation you are in when that's somewhat clearly not true, even if that isn't the intent. Idk. Part of communication is reading between the lines, and you could argue Illwei & co is doing it wrong, but yep.

57 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

On

57 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

...It's about trying to arrive at a hopefully-veredical answer?

yes, but if you don't mean to converge on any answer with them then how do you hope to converge on a true one

you can say that you don't have to necessarily converge, that just having someone to argue against enhances your own ability to find the right answer even if they don't ever agree with it

and well, there's something there

but idk I kinda think if you have someone really well worth arguing with for that purpose, then getting yourself to the Right Answer is probably usually gonna be at least as hard as getting on the same page as that person

if agreeing on an answer is way harder than you yourself figuring out what the right one is, then idk it seems debatable whether having the argument is really a very useful part of the equation, seems like you could probably just figure it out on your own and maybe do it faster tbhhh

and so, the question of 'am i ready to spend the energy it takes to get on the same page as this person' still feels relevant i think when deciding if you want to have an argument, even if your ultimate goal isn't to convince them but to get at the correct answer

57 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

There's also the aspect where clarifying your position in a dispute need not be aiming to persuade so much as to set the record clear.

I mean, I don't actually see the intrinsic value in doing that?

As far as I can tell, this facilitates both the purposes of 1) persuasion and 2) using logical argumentation to arrive at a correct answer, but it isn't really an ends in of itself.

Or to put it another way, if you aren't concerned about what others think (which is basically the persuasion aspect) or what you should think (which is basically the arriving at a veredical answer aspect), then why does it matter whether the record is straight.

57 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Honestly in this particular case, it was more to ease my conscience and also to be less aggressive about it - again, refer to my beliefs about doing the basic Village work. I just feel it's kind of harsh to slam the door at "No" especially when it became pretty apparent Neil was taking it as a total refusal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

smhhh mr guilty conscience this is what happens when your first question is always "am I doing enough" instead of "should I do more"

but yes tbh I'm much more happy just shutting people down without giving reasons lol

57 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

You could try to hairsplit to say positional clarification aims to persuade that the clarified position is the correct way to read the dispute, in which case, fair enough, but then my stakes are simply not wanting to be misrepresented.

Well, fair enough, so in that case would you say not wanting to be misrepresented outweighs wanting to be read as village?

57 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

In part. I sometimes argue to clarify my own thoughts on the matter, and that affects a lot of how I approach the thread when Village as compared to when Evil, but also, again, positional clarification.

I'm sure the thread is grateful for all of us thinking out loud 

52 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

I geddit if u don't wanna I'm just considering how I feel about Royal and drawing a lot of ???s due to the behavioural divergence here so IDK if you are seeing something I'm not.

tbf if you read the elim doc I'm pretty sure my analysis section for Royal is just '???'

idk how to read Royal and I doubt that this will stop being the case this time around

46 minutes ago, Stick. said:

well, compare royalbee's entrance last game to their entrance this game

they entered with a vote last time, on the offensive 

this time the first thing they say is no pls im most definitely NOT evil, on the defence by default

ive decided i want to pocket neil so it can be village now. kas and drake are also probably villagers or at least not informed elims

hmm maybe Stick is the chosen one who can read Royal

Edited February 14 by DrakeMarshall

[DrakeMarshall]

1 hour ago, Kasimir said:

Fair, but if you're pulling the important crem hypothesis, then you are basically more or less committed to a set of <Archer, Faerie????, Aeo> with little else - at this hour, or even marginally before that, there's little else that could conceivably drag Stick's attention this far off. Maybe bake Neil back in but given the three of us have been having an ongoing thing in the thread, I don't feel doc presence is as viable. Perhaps you can but I can't hold both an argument like this, and handle important doc crem at the same time. Stick's timezone being fairly unique does have certain advantages.

to be fair, Archer is the first person you put in that list, and guess who I'm voting for

I might be wrong, but I'm at least consistent

I do think either way this is something that becomes more apparent as the game goes on, the first few hours of C1 likely isn't the best sample size, but wcyd it's the sample size that exists so far, all you can do is update your reads when more data comes in

1 hour ago, Kasimir said:

I guess what I'm saying is that if it's important doc crem that can't wait, it probably almost certainly entails E!Stick's docmates would have to be present. Stick would otherwise not feel so pressured to be present there. It's not impossible but I still don't favour that hypothesis due to who the set would be - but anyway I also think it's a moot point given she just said she was in class, and wouldn't have excluded her from being the Insider anyway

hmmm point

I mean I can fill a doc on my lonesome but it sure does help if someone else is there at least a little

55 minutes ago, Stick. said:

no

ig pocketing only goes one way

stick drives a hard bargain like that

edit:

anyways I'd still maintain Stick isn't particularly being quiet rn

she's made 11 posts in the first few hours of the game, objectively speaking that's probably a lot

the only reason it doesn't feel like a lot is because there's already 4 pages for some reason

...yeah I just checked, this is a bit more posts than she'd done in the last game by this point in time, and I'd also say this time around the posts are a bit more substantive maybe

does this point to v!Stick? maybe

who knows tbh

Edited February 14 by DrakeMarshall

[Stick.]

my posts are very substantive i agree hmmyes 

EDIT:

what's the case on archer then

EDIT:

jnv's only post is kinda meh

Edited February 14 by Stick.
grammar + edits

[Kasimir]

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

if someone argued against you, you counter-argued, and then they unvoted you, would the fact that they unvoted you make you feel better

Honestly no, especially if they don't engage with the argument.

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

but you see why people might press X to doubt, right?

I can see why people might press X to doubt but they would be wrong which is the whole point of my clarifying it.

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

leaving it at that feels by implication like you are saying you don't really care about the situation you are in when that's somewhat clearly not true, even if that isn't the intent.

I mean, that's true psychologically for me. I'll give you an example - in the case you voted me, exed me, and I found out you were just Elims trying to hardpush me, obviously I dgaf then because you just had vested interests which explains the bad reasons. What I'm saying here is: idgaf about how you want to do the entailment. In my head, it's very clear I get fed-up when it's a bad argument. Do I fight all bad arguments? No, because it pisses everyone off and because it takes more to trigger my wanting to be altruistic. You're entitled to feel differently or to just argue I'm deluded about my own psychology (certainly possible), but to me, it's still about the bad arguments.

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

yes, but if you don't mean to converge on any answer with them then how do you hope to converge on a true one

I believe that even having to frame the thought in the form of an argument is a first layer check, as is if anyone comes by and engages, as you are clearly doing. If you write the thought and go 'hang on that doesn't work', then clearly you aren't gonna converge. If no one can rebut it, rather than a specific them, then maybe it's not half bad after all. Recall that in this context, the specific 'them' is the person you are disagreeing with.

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

you can say that you don't have to necessarily converge, that just having someone to argue against enhances your own ability to find the right answer even if they don't ever agree with it

Honestly that's kind of where I am, at least with regard to my process. It's functionally how journal publishing works these days - no one is ever going to convince Reviewer #2, lbr.

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

if agreeing on an answer is way harder than you yourself figuring out what the right one is, then idk it seems debatable whether having the argument is really a very useful part of the equation, seems like you could probably just figure it out on your own and maybe do it faster tbhhh

Yes, but I can't think it out in my head, I need to see it written down (see what I've written earlier), and then the thread is as good a place as the GM PM. Probably better since I might get useful engagement from someone else.

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

and so, the question of 'am i ready to spend the energy it takes to get on the same page as this person' still feels relevant i think when deciding if you want to have an argument, even if your ultimate goal isn't to convince them but to get at the correct answer

But we're back to whether I felt it was worth spending the energy specifically to get Neil to think I'm Village (no), which is a different evaluation from "am I ready to look at this problem" (why not.) My bar for the latter is a lot lower than for the former. You can argue they are interconnected, but to me they aren't, and even if the interlocuter is unlikely to get back, if I judge the problem itself is worth doing it for, then why not? And there's always the off-chance an interloper will add clarity. My motivation level for doing either is just fundamentally different at the baseline.

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

I mean, I don't actually see the intrinsic value in doing that?

Are you insane.

Dude this is like 500% the point of contemporary analytic philosophy and I'm seriously disturbed you don't think this matters as much as I do  I think this is significant and I also am really invested in it

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

Or to put it another way, if you aren't concerned about what others think (which is basically the persuasion aspect) or what you should think (which is basically the arriving at a veredical answer aspect), then why does it matter whether the record is straight.

But I am concerned with the second point - the whole point of doing it is to facilitate clarity, and clarity facilitates truth-seeking because poorly-defined problems leads to poorly-defined understanding of the situation, i.e. false paths. I'd also add on a pragmatic level I think it's worth clarifying just to be polite. There's a certain level of how much good/bad faith to assume. In which case it's reasonable to go "I will do this much to assume good faith but if you ain't getting there, you ain't." You can argue it's some level of investment in what someone else thinks, but it's also a healthy degree of disinvestment because you are outcome-agnostic enough to not really want to avert the other outcome.

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

but yes tbh I'm much more happy just shutting people down without giving reasons lol

Lio knows

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

Well, fair enough, so in that case would you say not wanting to be misrepresented outweighs wanting to be read as village?

Honestly yes. It irks me more than anything when someone misrepresents and I think untraining the reflexive 'Evil!' read on it was the hardest thing to do. It's probably linked to the fact it also pisses me off very quickly IRL. Game-wise I'd argue again being read as Village comes naturally or not if you are solving, so I never see that as the thing I want to oay attention to.

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

I'm sure the thread is grateful for all of us thinking out loud 

TJ could've put us in a doc or given us PMs. Clearly his fault

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

tbf if you read the elim doc I'm pretty sure my analysis section for Royal is just '???'

I felt I had a decent Royal read later in the last game. But at the moment, not so much, potentially because I don't have a strong mental model of Royal yet.

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

I might be wrong, but I'm at least consistent

I'll buy that

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

anyways I'd still maintain Stick isn't particularly being quiet rn

The issue with the Stick point is I'm not talking about post-volume. I'm just talking about the fact she aggressively offered about five different reads very early on in the last game (which was actively Village-helpful and TMI-informed) but didn't here. Or at least, I felt it took her longer to get around to it, and the fact that it happened after I said it makes me less willing to credit it. I just feel that's a clear behavioural difference that makes me wonder if her hesitance to hit the mark is lack of TMI. It could've still made her an Insider which is why I was careful about my phrasing.

[|TJ|]

VC - 

Aeoryi (2): Faerie Braids, neil the beguiled
RoyalBeeMage (1): Stick
Stick (1): Archer
JNV (1): Kasimir
Archer (1): Drake

One tiny change I forgot to mention about >>

Octet kill is no longer immutable. Octet members can change their kill order as much as possible as it is in GM PMs now. 

[Kasimir]

28 minutes ago, |TJ| said:

Octet kill is no longer immutable. Octet members can change their kill order as much as possible as it is in GM PMs now. 

Beautiful. Spiderman meme on steroids >:D

2 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

does this point to v!Stick? maybe

3 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

hmm maybe Stick is the chosen one who can read Royal

Akan datang. I will say the Royal read gave me some Hyena vibes.

 

[Stick.]

@RoyalBeeMage hey friend 

 

im currently voting you, do you have anything to say about that?

 

do you wanna put down a vote of your own? 

Edit:

12 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Akan datang. I will say the Royal read gave me some Hyena vibes.

Wdym? :0 

[Kasimir]

10 minutes ago, Stick. said:

Wdym? :0 

It just kind of feels like it did when you were lobbying me about Hyena in the PM with Mat. It felt at points then like you were overcredencing or overpushing for it, but more subtly so since no lobbying here. But given Royal's play so far, I think I'm content to just watch and see how it goes. I don't feel strongly about it, but there's no harm in pointing out the thought crossed my mind.

Edited to add:

Like you kept insisting Hyena's "Man I read my own posts and thought I was E" was pretty Evil and at first I defended Hyena because I've had that experience too, cf. the Araris game I mentioned. There was just an intuitive sense you were overpushing because I felt it was relatable. I went with you in the end but the argument never really 'clicked,' for want of a better word, which was probably because I had other places where I V!read Hyena a little.

I'm ambivalent enough about Royal because I don't have a baseline and their few engagements last game have led me to insert them in a particular type of profile that I'm not very good at reading, so I have no issues seeing how you and Royal play out.

3 hours ago, DrakeMarshall said:

does this point to v!Stick? maybe

If you are the Informant and are brawling Stick rn in the doc imma laugh

How the turns have tabled.

[Stick.]

hmm yeah I haven’t pushed royal nearly as much as I was pushing hyena behind the scenes there  

 

though I’d welcome more votes on them for pressure if nothing else