Long Game 54: Cognitive Diversions

[Shqueeves]

Because I don't trust myself with voting tomorrow, Fifth Scholar, rng has chosen you as a target. I have nothing substantial to add right now, I'm going to reread the rules a few times and see if anything will come to me.

[Lumgol]

In the interests of self defense, I'll vote Fifth since the only other vote so far is on me. However, if a better target comes up I'll likely switch my vote.

[Levitaph]

Lumgol. Maybe he's just very fast, but he posted asap being "super helpful" with the sja hunt. In mafia-esc games like this, that kind of post draws the attention of "the bad guys," so only the very brave or the very evil will do it. 

 

Devotary, I'd love to hear about your essence experiment results. I haven't played sanderson elim before, so I don't have a reference for how much impact those kind of items have on the game.

[Fifth Scholar]

6 hours ago, Lumgol said:

So, another point I'd like to have some of your opinions on:

Should we focus more on finding Sja-anat and eliminating her extra lives (and thus potential conversions) first, or focus on killing the converts, so that we can at least try to prevent the elim team from growing? If converts are constantly killed, Sja-anat will either be forced to use up her extra lives to rebuild her team (thus weakening her and requiring less time to lynch her), or she'll have to keep her extra lives but stick to a smaller team or fly solo.

However, trying to lynch Sja-anat from the beginning will reduce her opportunities to convert early on, which would be quite a blow. Especially this round, where we don't know if there even are converts, Sja-anat is the obvious lynch target.

Who do you guys think we should focus on for the rest of the game?

I’m thinking we should focus on you, Lumgol. Irrespective of your jumping on a literally random vote against me, this post sets my alarm bells ringing. First, there’s no distinction between Sja’anat and a convert until we lynch them; before then, they’re both just Elims and are equally necessary to remove. So why bring this up at all? It’s splitting hairs, and drives discussion in a meaningless direction, and away from focus on players, which is the discussion that will ultimately lead to us finding Eliminators. If/when we do find them, it won’t matter whether they’re a convert or Sja’anat herself—it’ll be equally bad for the Eliminator team. 

I’m not really on board with Sart’s logic on your first post, but I do take issue that you’re focusing heavily on mechanics (again) and not players. This gives you a post, with the semblance of activity and analysis, which is convenient for a Sja’anat!Lumgol after your own insinuations that inactives were more likely to be evil, and also conveniently prevents you from having to give opinions on other players until later. Even your current vote dodges this necessity, as you can claim self-preservation rather than genuine suspicion once I flip village. 

@Shqueeves, if I wasn’t voting for Lumgol, I’d be voting on you. What good does your random vote do? I’ve already responded to the thread, and clearly am not inactive. As with Lumgol, your post conveniently allows you to not have to justify your vote. 

Meditation (Yes, this is what spellcheck corrected “edit” to): Steel’s PAFO is probably a yes, which is unfortunate. If it was explicitly against the rules, I don’t see a reason for him not to clarify. Assuming this is the case, however, I doubt Sja’anat has more than three *extra* lives—this would grant a maximum of four Eliminators at a single time, which seems most reasonable. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Fifth Scholar

[Lumgol]

20 hours ago, Sart said:

If anything, I trust inactive players more this game, as they are undesirable targets for conversion. This logic might be intended for us to lynch inactive villagers, rather than focus on finding active killers.

That's a really great point Sart. That logic makes me especially willing to trust the less active people who want to be active but happen to have a lot of other things going on. However, nowhere did I state that lynching inactives should be prioritized over lynching blatantly suspicious people. All I was saying that a lack of care towards activity could mean that the player couldn't become bonded and thus didn't have that incentive to post and vote.

23 minutes ago, Levitaph said:

Lumgol. Maybe he's just very fast, but he posted asap being "super helpful" with the sja hunt. In mafia-esc games like this, that kind of post draws the attention of "the bad guys," so only the very brave or the very evil will do it.

In situations like these, I see how posting like that would draw elim attention; however, I feel like lynching "super helpful" posters would actually hurt the elims more than it would help them, since it would make them look blatantly evil (voting on someone who was just trying to help). So, I don't see how it would require being super brave or super evil to post like that, because any elim attention that that playstyle generates will very easily be seen as elim.

6 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

I’m not really on board with Sart’s logic on your first post, but I do take issue that you’re focusing heavily on mechanics (again) and not players. This gives you a post, with the semblance of activity and analysis, which is convenient for a Sja’anat!Lumgol after your own insinuations that inactives were more likely to be evil, and also conveniently prevents you from having to give opinions on other players until later. Even your current vote dodges this necessity, as you can claim self-preservation rather than genuine suspicion once I flip village.

Why is it suddenly a problem that I'm analyzing mechanics instead of players? 

1) I've never been particularly big on player analysis in past games, instead choosing to look more closely at roles and mechanics. And, in past games, I've nearly always been village. So I don't see how focusing on mechanics makes me more likely to be elim. Furthermore, player analysis would give elims plenty of opportunities to frame people and lead mislynches.

2) As for player analysis, there isn't much to analyze as it is D1. So far, the only things that have happened are my posts and people's responses to them, RP and posts about how active people are able to be, and Devotary's plan to try to create a Radiant out of Essences (which seems quite interesting, by the way, but doesn't provide much as far as trusting or suspicion goes), and Shqueeves's random vote on you.

Speaking of that random vote, yes, it is a self-preservation vote, and it was meant to be this way. As much as I dislike the concept of randomly voting, it seems like the only viable option at this point for me to stay alive. I don't have enough information on you so far to trust or suspect you (except the fact that you've just voted on me which makes me want to suspect you but that's a more emotional reason that I try to avoid). If you flip village, then it'll be bad luck that I got rid of a fellow villager due to self-preservation. It'll be unfortunate if that happens, but again, I'd like to stay alive.

[Steeldancer]

17 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

Steel’s PAFO is probably a yes, which is unfortunate. If it was explicitly against the rules, I don’t see a reason for him not to clarify.

The PAFO is more of a IHDYAFO (I haven't decided yet and find out). Because saying Sja-Anat can commit suicide means that Sja-Anat could also use any extra lives to convert, which might break the game. I'll make an official ruling once I decide what won't break the game. 

[Fifth Scholar]

4 minutes ago, Lumgol said:

In situations like these, I see how posting like that would draw elim attention; however, I feel like lynching "super helpful" posters would actually hurt the elims more than it would help them, since it would make them look blatantly evil (voting on someone who was just trying to help). So, I don't see how it would require being super brave or super evil to post like that, because any elim attention that that playstyle generates will very easily be seen as elim.

Eh, you’d be surprised.  “Blatant” pursuit of very active and vocal players is more easily done, actually, because there’s more content from which to draw suspicion; as such, both villagers and Elims will go for such lynches. It might be why I’ve focused on you a bit, but I believe my points still stand irrespective of higher content levels perhaps producing more suspicion. 

8 minutes ago, Lumgol said:

Why is it suddenly a problem that I'm analyzing mechanics instead of players? 

1) I've never been particularly big on player analysis in past games, instead choosing to look more closely at roles and mechanics. And, in past games, I've nearly always been village. So I don't see how focusing on mechanics makes me more likely to be elim. Furthermore, player analysis would give elims plenty of opportunities to frame people and lead mislynches.

2) As for player analysis, there isn't much to analyze as it is D1. So far, the only things that have happened are my posts and people's responses to them, RP and posts about how active people are able to be, and Devotary's plan to try to create a Radiant out of Essences (which seems quite interesting, by the way, but doesn't provide much as far as trusting or suspicion goes), and Shqueeves's random vote on you.

Speaking of that random vote, yes, it is a self-preservation vote, and it was meant to be this way. As much as I dislike the concept of randomly voting, it seems like the only viable option at this point for me to stay alive. I don't have enough information on you so far to trust or suspect you (except the fact that you've just voted on me which makes me want to suspect you but that's a more emotional reason that I try to avoid). If you flip village, then it'll be bad luck that I got rid of a fellow villager due to self-preservation. It'll be unfortunate if that happens, but again, I'd like to stay alive.

Mechanics analysis isn’t an issue, but shouldn’t replace player analysis. The first tends to be more NAI than the second, and the second helps develop and expose links between players, making it far easier to find Elims. 

1) While I’d rather not get too meta here, any record of mechanics analysis done in the past has no bearing on your alignment now. I’m not criticising your analysis; in fact, I agree with a good portion of it. But I’m concerned that you’re using it as a screen to avoid player analysis, which I saw as bad. While your explanation assuages some of my suspicion, the fact remains that the mechanics thing wasn’t the only reason I voted for you. Second, yes, player analysis helps lead mislynches if an Elim can do it convincingly, but it also provides insights into which people are suspicious of each other, defending each other, etc. It’s a goldmine of data that mechanics discussion simply can’t rival, and is fruitful even if we have a mislynch here or there. And people that obviously push lynches on more trusted players, or bandwagon needlessly, are exposed by player analysis and the voting that follows. 

2) It’s still enough to begin discussion, and player discussion can spring from mechanics talk (as indeed it has here). Pokevotes like Sart’s, and even random actions like Shqueeves’s, can drive this analysis. However, you raise a valid point that little directly lynch-related had been said. 

3) I appreciate that you’re trying to save your life, but obviously can’t clear you for it, as an Eliminator would try the exact same thing (in fact, an Eliminator would have greater incentive to preserve themselves than a villager). Further, if you truly want to protect yourself from the lynch, I suggest proposing a candidate who wasn’t chosen by RNG. The lynch swings dramatically throughout the cycle, and a quick self-preservation vote on me is indicative of a mindset concerned with instant survival, again a higher priority of Eliminators than villagers. 

I will admit that you bring up good points in your posts, but I don’t have enough to justify the removal of my vote quite yet, as you’re still my clear highest suspect. If a better candidate is offered with more compelling reasoning, I’d be fine switching. I’d also back a Shqueeves lynch if more people are comfortable with him as a candidate than Lumgol. 

23 minutes ago, Steeldancer said:

The PAFO is more of a IHDYAFO (I haven't decided yet and find out). Because saying Sja-Anat can commit suicide means that Sja-Anat could also use any extra lives to convert, which might break the game. I'll make an official ruling once I decide what won't break the game. 

Sounds fair enough.  

[Rathmaskal]

Infighting like this is rarely productive my nephews and nieces.

---

So I always find it interesting when D1 turns into a two-person race this early.  First, current vote count.

Lumgol (3) - Sart, Levitaph, Fifth
Fifth (2) - Shqueeves, Lumgol

OK, so the votes on Fifth so far don't have much in the way of justification, so I don't think there's much point in analyzing them at this point, especially Lum's vote.

The votes on Lum definitely have some justification and to some degree I see what everyone is seeing in Lum's posts...  So, let's take a look at those posts.

• Lum post #1 - First overall post of game - "Bonding could definitely affect activity" - this one seems fairly NAI on its own.  Personally, I don't think I've yet seen a game mechanic that truly affected thread activity.  People are active or they aren't...and sometimes they'll attempt to hide behind inactivity if they are trying to hide something, but I don't think anything in this game's mechanics are really going to affect that.
• Lum post #2 - several posts between these posts, mostly check ins and a couple posts discounting Lum post #1 - "Should we get Sja-Anat or the other elims?" - this one seems a bit more suspicious...  It's trying to generate conversation on the game...but I, personally, don't think it would end up being overly productive conversation, as a couple other people have implied as well.  An elim is an elim and we really aren't going to be able to determine one way or the other whether or not a specific elim is Sja-Anat or just a normal elim unless we run into extra lives.  A better question, which Sart brought up and I don't think anyone has answered, is whether we should hammer down anyone who pops up with extra lives.  I'm still unsure on my feelings here...either we remove the most powerful elim or the most powerful village if we run into this...  Having the Stormfather claim at this point could help...so I'm thinking I'll lean toward 'kill them all' if we find someone with extra lives, but I'll have to reread the rules to make sure there isn't anything else that could mimic this.  Anyway, back to the topic of this post...this post by Lum I definitely find a bit suspicious.
• Lum post #3 - a few posts between...Elandera and I dispute the idea of "focusing" on finding a specific elim, Devotary mentions that Sja-Anat could be easier to find with the extra lives (although we'd still have to find Sja first...) and Shqueeves puts down the random vote on Fifth - "self-preservation vote on Fifth" - Although I think it's still a bit early in the cycle to really be worried about a self preservation vote, I don't see this as anything other than NAI.
• Lum post #4 - Main post between these is Fifth's vote and analysis on Lum - "Defense" - Mostly NAI, but "...there isn't much to analyze as it is D1..." is a bit off.  Yes, there hadn't been a ton of activity for your posts, and I agree that Fifth calling you out on not performing player analysis seems a bit off itself...but don't discount the ability of people to get a decent amount of analysis in once people do start talking about the game and not just RPing and poke voting (which has been surprisingly low so far)

In summary... I'm not opposed to a Lum lynch, but I'm obviously not 100% convinced.  (OK, I should probably just delete that last sentence since I realize how dumb it sounds to say I'm not 100% convinced on someone being an elim based on D1 conversation...but I'm going to leave it in there since I think it serves as a good reminder that sometimes voting for someone D1 can be good even if you aren't 100% sure...)

OK, I'll join for now.  Lumgol

Currently this is mostly based on post #2 and parts of post #4...so Lum, if you can provide satisfactory defense on those (or if I find someone better to vote on) I'll pull my vote off.

[Elandera]

I'll be honest, while I see some justification for the votes on Lum, her posts seem more like conjecture and attempts at getting discussion going more than anything.

Voting on her because she wasn't doing player analysis this early is a stretch to say the least. What was there to analyze? (At this point, there is more content, but the only analysis has been focused on Lum for not analyzing). 

This might not be the right reason, but Lum has also been lynched early on in a lot of her games for being relatively new. Last time, she deserved it, but the "elim behavior" being pointed out this time seem more similar to her style when she was lynched as village.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Elandera

[old man moomba]

Hmmmmmm.

[Rathmaskal]

Just now, Dr. Dapper said:

Hmmmmmm.

Excellent sentiment.

Elandera, I completely agree with you that it's a weak lynch at this point...but most D1 lynches are.  Fifth's criticism of Lum is slowly swaying my thoughts that way...but at this point it's worth getting a vote out there...especially since too often when I've said, "I'll get a vote out later this cycle," it results in me not getting a vote in because of something else coming up.  At this point, I don't think we were given an explicit ruling on what would happen with a tie vote, so I'm not willing to vote on Fifth to tie things up right now.  At the least it can give more people information on me I guess.  @Steeldancer, we getting a PAFO for that one?  (what happens on a tie vote)

[Steeldancer]

I said it was random if it's a tie vote. 

[Rathmaskal]

6 minutes ago, Steeldancer said:

I said it was random if it's a tie vote. 

Ahhh, sorry, I looked through the rules and the signup thread...completely skipped over your post in this thread.  Thanks.

[Lumgol]

2 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said:

I’m thinking we should focus on you, Lumgol. Irrespective of your jumping on a literally random vote against me, this post sets my alarm bells ringing. First, there’s no distinction between Sja’anat and a convert until we lynch them; before then, they’re both just Elims and are equally necessary to remove. So why bring this up at all? It’s splitting hairs, and drives discussion in a meaningless direction, and away from focus on players, which is the discussion that will ultimately lead to us finding Eliminators. If/when we do find them, it won’t matter whether they’re a convert or Sja’anat herself—it’ll be equally bad for the Eliminator team.

Alright, I'll talk about that post as well. I still haven't covered my rationale behind that one and it seems to be generating a fair amount of suspicion, which in retrospect, I understand completely. 

Basically I was imagining a hypothetical scenario, in a future cycle.

There are 2 players that people are generally finding suspicious, and for simplicity, let's assume that they're both actually elims.

People decide to lynch Player 1, and they survive. The players assume that Player 1 is Sja-anat (again, I'll assume that they actually are Sja-anat).

Next turn, neither Player 1 nor Player 2 seem any less suspicious. I started wondering to myself whether it would be optimal to lynch Player 1 or Player 2 in this case.

I'd say I agree with what most people are saying, that what matters is that we're lynching an elim and whether they're Sja-anat or not is less relevant. 

As for your point about this driving discussion away from more useful things, I disagree. Just because I said something or brought up a point doesn't mean that people have to talk about it or avoid talking about other things. Adding to a discussion does not have to negate or steer away from other things being discussed in the present or future. Either way, this was certainly not my goal in posting what I did, whether people find it suspicious or not.

[Shqueeves]

3 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said:

@Shqueeves, if I wasn’t voting for Lumgol, I’d be voting on you. What good does your random vote do? I’ve already responded to the thread, and clearly am not inactive. As with Lumgol, your post conveniently allows you to not have to justify your vote. 

My vote increases my chances of being bonded. That was large reason for it. The reasoning behind using a random vote instead of better analysis is i will be out of commission for the majority of the latter half of this cycle, which is usually where a lot of discussion occurs. A stab in the dark is better than no stab at all.

[Coop772]

I will (somewhat regrettably) vote Lumgol. She is driving conversation, which is good, but her reasoning just isn't doing it for me compared to the counterpoints brought up by *several* other people. Sorry, and ik this is probably not the way you wanted this lg to go, but the village must survive

[Lumgol]

There's no need to sound so apologetic  

[Mailliw73]

22 hours left in the day!

Also, let me share this fitting screenshot of our GM.

Spoiler

There's a Voidbringer among us... Sja-Anat is not alone.

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Mailliw73
Voidies

[Steeldancer]

20 minutes ago, Mailliw73 said:

22 hours left in the day!

Also, let me share this fitting screenshot of our GM.

  Reveal hidden contents

There's a Voidbringer among us... Sja-Anat is not alone.

 

go to bed mailliw

[Furamirionind]

Lumgols initial defence of Fifth's accusations I did find read a bit weird to me.

However, like elandera said, Lumgol has a history of posts like that.  I agree mechanics analysis can be used as a shield from player analysis... But it is difficult to make that transition.  For me I started trying player analysis in MR32 IIRC, where Randuir I believe was "pressuring" me to do it, even if it was bad.

@Lumgol just to show that this isnt a mask, (and because you really arent that new anymore) I would like t ok see some player analysis from you.  It doesnt have to be good if you dont think it will be.  No one will judge you based on the analysis.  And practicing it is the only way to get better.

I do not like the lynch against Lumgol.  I am tempted to vote for someone semi-random for a counter lynch... but for right now I dont have anyone...

Fifth originally was pushing for Lum pretty hard based on some interesting analysis presented in a very good way. Then when Lum responded, he back tracked but kept his vote.

As Lumgol is currently leading the lynch, and I think this ties it up, Fifth

(Really late for me... so I am not going to quote or do another reread of the thread.  I will hopefully be on agains around lunch tomorrow.)

Edited April 19, 2019 by Furamirionind
Bolded vote for ease of reading

[Steeldancer]

Oh, by the way, I'm going to be at a sanderson signing tomorrow at rollover.

[TheMightyLopen]

5 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said:

I’m thinking we should focus on you, Lumgol. Irrespective of your jumping on a literally random vote against me, this post sets my alarm bells ringing. First, there’s no distinction between Sja’anat and a convert until we lynch them; before then, they’re both just Elims and are equally necessary to remove. So why bring this up at all? It’s splitting hairs, and drives discussion in a meaningless direction, and away from focus on players, which is the discussion that will ultimately lead to us finding Eliminators. If/when we do find them, it won’t matter whether they’re a convert or Sja’anat herself—it’ll be equally bad for the Eliminator team. 

I’m not really on board with Sart’s logic on your first post, but I do take issue that you’re focusing heavily on mechanics (again) and not players. This gives you a post, with the semblance of activity and analysis, which is convenient for a Sja’anat!Lumgol after your own insinuations that inactives were more likely to be evil, and also conveniently prevents you from having to give opinions on other players until later. Even your current vote dodges this necessity, as you can claim self-preservation rather than genuine suspicion once I flip village. 

@Shqueeves, if I wasn’t voting for Lumgol, I’d be voting on you. What good does your random vote do? I’ve already responded to the thread, and clearly am not inactive. As with Lumgol, your post conveniently allows you to not have to justify your vote. 

Meditation (Yes, this is what spellcheck corrected “edit” to): Steel’s PAFO is probably a yes, which is unfortunate. If it was explicitly against the rules, I don’t see a reason for him not to clarify. Assuming this is the case, however, I doubt Sja’anat has more than three *extra* lives—this would grant a maximum of four Eliminators at a single time, which seems most reasonable. 

I feel like this is a little over the top. Lumgol just seems like they want to survive, and their posts so far read to me like a player trying to get the discussion started, rather than trying to control what's being said. This has already been said, but I'd like to reiterate that at the time of this post, there really hadn't been many "posts" so accusing Lumgol of not discussing players over mechanics feels unnecessarily aggressive. I understand the thought of "elims hide behind posts that appear substantial but don't actually have much useful information" to catch out elims, but it's so early in the game that that isn't really applicable yet.

4 hours ago, Fifth Scholar said:

-other stuff was here-

3) I appreciate that you’re trying to save your life, but obviously can’t clear you for it, as an Eliminator would try the exact same thing (in fact, an Eliminator would have greater incentive to preserve themselves than a villager). Further, if you truly want to protect yourself from the lynch, I suggest proposing a candidate who wasn’t chosen by RNG. The lynch swings dramatically throughout the cycle, and a quick self-preservation vote on me is indicative of a mindset concerned with instant survival, again a higher priority of Eliminators than villagers. 

I will admit that you bring up good points in your posts, but I don’t have enough to justify the removal of my vote quite yet, as you’re still my clear highest suspect. If a better candidate is offered with more compelling reasoning, I’d be fine switching. I’d also back a Shqueeves lynch if more people are comfortable with him as a candidate than Lumgol. 

Sounds fair enough.  

Firstly, I just want to question why does an eliminator have more incentive to preserve themselves than a villager? I don't really understand that. As a villager, any other player besides yourself is a better lynch, wouldn't you say? You can only trust yourself, so everyone else has a chance of being evil.

I also disagree with a Shqueeves lynch. His vote looks to me like a standard rng vote so he can try to be bonded. If I don't find a good target before the end of the cycle, I'll likely use rng to vote as well.

3 hours ago, Rathmaskal said:

Infighting like this is rarely productive my nephews and nieces.

---

So I always find it interesting when D1 turns into a two-person race this early.  First, current vote count.

Lumgol (3) - Sart, Levitaph, Fifth
Fifth (2) - Shqueeves, Lumgol

OK, so the votes on Fifth so far don't have much in the way of justification, so I don't think there's much point in analyzing them at this point, especially Lum's vote.

The votes on Lum definitely have some justification and to some degree I see what everyone is seeing in Lum's posts...  So, let's take a look at those posts.

• Lum post #1 - First overall post of game - "Bonding could definitely affect activity" - this one seems fairly NAI on its own.  Personally, I don't think I've yet seen a game mechanic that truly affected thread activity.  People are active or they aren't...and sometimes they'll attempt to hide behind inactivity if they are trying to hide something, but I don't think anything in this game's mechanics are really going to affect that.
• Lum post #2 - several posts between these posts, mostly check ins and a couple posts discounting Lum post #1 - "Should we get Sja-Anat or the other elims?" - this one seems a bit more suspicious...  It's trying to generate conversation on the game...but I, personally, don't think it would end up being overly productive conversation, as a couple other people have implied as well.  An elim is an elim and we really aren't going to be able to determine one way or the other whether or not a specific elim is Sja-Anat or just a normal elim unless we run into extra lives.  A better question, which Sart brought up and I don't think anyone has answered, is whether we should hammer down anyone who pops up with extra lives.  I'm still unsure on my feelings here...either we remove the most powerful elim or the most powerful village if we run into this...  Having the Stormfather claim at this point could help...so I'm thinking I'll lean toward 'kill them all' if we find someone with extra lives, but I'll have to reread the rules to make sure there isn't anything else that could mimic this.  Anyway, back to the topic of this post...this post by Lum I definitely find a bit suspicious.
• Lum post #3 - a few posts between...Elandera and I dispute the idea of "focusing" on finding a specific elim, Devotary mentions that Sja-Anat could be easier to find with the extra lives (although we'd still have to find Sja first...) and Shqueeves puts down the random vote on Fifth - "self-preservation vote on Fifth" - Although I think it's still a bit early in the cycle to really be worried about a self preservation vote, I don't see this as anything other than NAI.
• Lum post #4 - Main post between these is Fifth's vote and analysis on Lum - "Defense" - Mostly NAI, but "...there isn't much to analyze as it is D1..." is a bit off.  Yes, there hadn't been a ton of activity for your posts, and I agree that Fifth calling you out on not performing player analysis seems a bit off itself...but don't discount the ability of people to get a decent amount of analysis in once people do start talking about the game and not just RPing and poke voting (which has been surprisingly low so far)

In summary... I'm not opposed to a Lum lynch, but I'm obviously not 100% convinced.  (OK, I should probably just delete that last sentence since I realize how dumb it sounds to say I'm not 100% convinced on someone being an elim based on D1 conversation...but I'm going to leave it in there since I think it serves as a good reminder that sometimes voting for someone D1 can be good even if you aren't 100% sure...)

OK, I'll join for now.  Lumgol

Currently this is mostly based on post #2 and parts of post #4...so Lum, if you can provide satisfactory defense on those (or if I find someone better to vote on) I'll pull my vote off.

This post feels off to me. Seems non-committal. I get that it's D1, but I feel like Rath is really hedging here with phrases like "definitely have some justification and to some degree I see what people are saying" it feels to me like he wants to vote, but he doesn't want to just bandwagon, so he's putting as much reasoning behind his vote as he can without really committing to the idea that he feels Lumgol is evil. Rathmaskal

2 hours ago, Coop772 said:

I will (somewhat regrettably) vote Lumgol. She is driving conversation, which is good, but her reasoning just isn't doing it for me compared to the counterpoints brought up by *several* other people. Sorry, and ik this is probably not the way you wanted this lg to go, but the village must survive

I obviously don't agree with this vote, but for some reason it feels village. Just seems too carefree for an eliminator. Like I mentioned with Rathmaskal, I feel an eliminator would try to justify their vote much more than this so that they aren't seen as simply bandwagoning.

At this point, here are my feeliings:

Lumgol - Seems village. I don't think an eliminator would have tried a self-preservation vote as early as her vote was, as typically elims try to not draw attention by being deciding votes. Much better to see how the Day goes and then once they're really in danger of being lynched, throw out the "since I'm being forced to vote in self-preservation, even if I lynch a villager it won't be suspicion as it's obviously self-preservation." Also, even though I don't think her posts about mechanics were super helpful, they don't feel like they had bad intentions behind them, IMO.

Fifth - I don't really like the reasoning behind the vote on Lumgol, but I think it's almost too aggressive play for an eliminator on D1. I get the feeling if Fifth was an eliminator, they would have tried to convince Lumgol to vote for someone else rather than attack them and pretty much force them to keep their vote where it is. As it is, a big conflict between Fifth and Lumgol could very well make other players have the idea of "if Lumgol is innocent then Fifth is evil" or vice versa. No elim wants to put themselves in a position like that on D1.

That's pretty much it from me.

Vote tally:

Lumgol(5): Sart, Levitaph, Fifth, Rath, Coop
Fifth(3): Shqueeves, Lumgol, Fura
Rath(1): Lopen

[Fifth Scholar]

6 hours ago, Elandera said:

I'll be honest, while I see some justification for the votes on Lum, her posts seem more like conjecture and attempts at getting discussion going more than anything.

Voting on her because she wasn't doing player analysis this early is a stretch to say the least. What was there to analyze? (At this point, there is more content, but the only analysis has been focused on Lum for not analyzing). 

This might not be the right reason, but Lum has also been lynched early on in a lot of her games for being relatively new. Last time, she deserved it, but the "elim behavior" being pointed out this time seem more similar to her style when she was lynched as village.

That’s a fair point, Elandera, and one I hadn’t quite considered. I suppose the “conjecture” sort of rubbed me the wrong way, though, as I’ve seen it used by Eliminators to avoid taking firm stances, and since it’s often accompanied by a lack of firm suspicions, I perhaps prematurely assumed that Lum was doing the same by connection. I still find the wording odd, but your explanation also makes a good deal of sense. 

5 hours ago, Shqueeves said:

My vote increases my chances of being bonded. That was large reason for it. The reasoning behind using a random vote instead of better analysis is i will be out of commission for the majority of the latter half of this cycle, which is usually where a lot of discussion occurs. A stab in the dark is better than no stab at all.

Hmm. I understand your thinking (and good luck with your teeth getting pulled), but I’d also appreciate it if you could find the time to weigh in on other players sometime soon, so that we can get something more solidly AI from you. 

2 hours ago, Furamirionind said:

Lumgols initial defence of Fifth's accusations I did find read a bit weird to me.

However, like elandera said, Lumgol has a history of posts like that.  I agree mechanics analysis can be used as a shield from player analysis... But it is difficult to make that transition.  For me I started trying player analysis in MR32 IIRC, where Randuir I believe was "pressuring" me to do it, even if it was bad.

@Lumgol just to show that this isnt a mask, (and because you really arent that new anymore) I would like t ok see some player analysis from you.  It doesnt have to be good if you dont think it will be.  No one will judge you based on the analysis.  And practicing it is the only way to get better.

I do not like the lynch against Lumgol.  I am tempted to vote for someone semi-random for a counter lynch... but for right now I dont have anyone...

Fifth originally was pushing for Lum pretty hard based on some interesting analysis presented in a very good way. Then when Lum responded, he back tracked but kept his vote.

As Lumgol is currently leading the lynch, and I think this ties it up, Fifth

(Really late for me... so I am not going to quote or do another reread of the thread.  I will hopefully be on agains around lunch tomorrow.)

Again, you bring up interesting points, Fura. At this point I am far less suspicious of Lumgol than I was previously, which you’ve correctly identified, and indeed am backtracking on her lynch, as I no longer believe quite as firmly in its validity. 

2 hours ago, TheMightyLopen said:

I feel like this is a little over the top. Lumgol just seems like they want to survive, and their posts so far read to me like a player trying to get the discussion started, rather than trying to control what's being said. This has already been said, but I'd like to reiterate that at the time of this post, there really hadn't been many "posts" so accusing Lumgol of not discussing players over mechanics feels unnecessarily aggressive. I understand the thought of "elims hide behind posts that appear substantial but don't actually have much useful information" to catch out elims, but it's so early in the game that that isn't really applicable yet.

Yeah, as I said before, I probably wasn’t in a D1 mindset making that post, and had forgotten a good deal of the context. Probably has to do with my main posts normally being before and directly after going to sleep.  @Lumgol, my apologies for slightly jumping the gun here—I think this has been made sufficiently clear. In conjunction with your defence, Lumgol, as while I hardly trust you, your responses to my accusations, which were themselves premature, have given me more of a village feeling from you. 

2 hours ago, TheMightyLopen said:

Firstly, I just want to question why does an eliminator have more incentive to preserve themselves than a villager? I don't really understand that. As a villager, any other player besides yourself is a better lynch, wouldn't you say? You can only trust yourself, so everyone else has a chance of being evil.

I also disagree with a Shqueeves lynch. His vote looks to me like a standard rng vote so he can try to be bonded. If I don't find a good target before the end of the cycle, I'll likely use rng to vote as well.

Villagers are defensive, but Eliminators prioritise survival over all else. I guess this feels like I’m also splitting hairs, but Eliminators (to me at least) will typically not only fear the lynch, but also won’t take significant risks, whether with actions or words, unless forced. As such, remaining within “safe” statements is generally good for them. I don’t know exactly where I was going with this, to be honest, but that was my thought process when I made that vote.  

Again, I dislike the RNG-vote as it’s a good way to neatly avoid having to justify a vote, or put significant thought behind it; while it may be less harmful D1, it’s still not helping the village with analysis or with the lynch itself. 

In regards to your later points on Rath, I tend to think that every game about him, and I’m always wrong.  I think I’ve gotten him lynched or have killed him several times in suspicion for exactly that. While I’d hate to ruin a good tradition, that’s probably just an ellipses-heavy writing style, which makes the tone (at least to me) sound more hesitant. While I don’t necessarily fully agree with his vote, I did almost the same thing, so I’m not really judging him. Coop’s vote, however, is more suspicious, and I’ll likely vote on either him or return my vote to Lum by the end of the cycle. 

[TheMightyLopen]

59 minutes ago, Fifth Scholar said:

 

Villagers are defensive, but Eliminators prioritise survival over all else. I guess this feels like I’m also splitting hairs, but Eliminators (to me at least) will typically not only fear the lynch, but also won’t take significant risks, whether with actions or words, unless forced. As such, remaining within “safe” statements is generally good for them. I don’t know exactly where I was going with this, to be honest, but that was my thought process when I made that vote.  

Again, I dislike the RNG-vote as it’s a good way to neatly avoid having to justify a vote, or put significant thought behind it; while it may be less harmful D1, it’s still not helping the village with analysis or with the lynch itself. 

In regards to your later points on Rath, I tend to think that every game about him, and I’m always wrong.  I think I’ve gotten him lynched or have killed him several times in suspicion for exactly that. While I’d hate to ruin a good tradition, that’s probably just an ellipses-heavy writing style, which makes the tone (at least to me) sound more hesitant. While I don’t necessarily fully agree with his vote, I did almost the same thing, so I’m not really judging him. Coop’s vote, however, is more suspicious, and I’ll likely vote on either him or return my vote to Lum by the end of the cycle. 

That's fair. It's sometimes hard for villagers to take a proactive playstyle though, since you really have no idea what's going on to begin the game. I do think it's important to try and be aggressive as a villager so that you don't let the eliminators just slip their way through the game by playing passively.

I wouldn't be a fan of an RNG-vote if Shqueeves had the time to look for suspicions, but as he posted saying he was busy, I thought it was a valid time to use that method if he wanted to try and get Bonded.

I was kinda wondering if it was just the ellipses that was making me feel uneasy, haha. I'd still like to hear more from him though. I'm also hoping that those who haven't really gotten involved in the lynch discussion so far can show up before the end of the Day, because I could definitely see Sja-Anat just sitting back and letting us create a web of mistrust that she's left out of because of her lack of participation.

While I did say I felt Coop's post was village-y, it was a short post and a bandwagon vote, so it would be good to hear more from him I think.

[DeTess]

Huh, it's odd seeing a bandwagon start up so early in D1. I can see the argument against Lumgol, with the post asking about whether to focus on Sja'anat in particular feeling off (seems like they where trying to somehow cover for sja'anat?). However, at that time no one else had really done enough to warrant player analysis. Her vote on Fifth also feels wrong, as it's a self-preservation vote in the first half of the cycle. I'd expect a villager to try and find an actual target, rather than throwing a vote on a random wagon.

Fifth's response feels a bit over the top, though I know I would feel a bit frustrated about the voting happening if I was in his shoes, irrespective of my alignment. His reasoning is definitely solid, but Lumgol was by far the easiest target (as in most suspicious, by D1 standards at least) to push a lynch through, so I'd say it is pretty NAI.

I agree that Rathmaskal often comes across as hedging, and I'm fairly certain I've tried to lynch him for that more than once while he was village.

Coop's vote feels very off to me. First of all, his vote comes late enough in the lumgol wagon that by D1 standards it could very easily lock the wagon in. Then, there's this lasts sentence:

7 hours ago, Coop772 said:

. Sorry, and ik this is probably not the way you wanted this lg to go, but the village must survive

This seems just way too much on the nose in regards to trying to affirm village-ness. The apologetic tone also makes it seem to me like they don't really believe in that lynch, which is odd if they where a villager thinking they where voting on an elim.

Right now, Coop and Lum are my main suspicions, but I'll be going with Coop for now.

 

11 hours ago, Levitaph said:

Lumgol. Maybe he's just very fast, but he posted asap being "super helpful" with the sja hunt. In mafia-esc games like this, that kind of post draws the attention of "the bad guys," so only the very brave or the very evil will do it. 

Levitaph, this might be a meta-difference between this forum and the forum you're used to, but most of the active players tend to be pretty open with their suspicions and suggestions, under the reasoning that it's better to die early having contributed, than survive to the end while not really adding anything to finding the elims (or worse, dying early while not having shared any of our suspicions). If I hadn't been very busy yesterday, I'd probably also have made a post that'd be in the same "super helpful" category (I usually start off with some analysis on the available roles).