Long Game 73: The Forgotten Coup

[Quintessential she/her]

NOooooo I had a whole mega-post written about the Striker/Matrim thing and then I hit refresh and it all disappeared! ;-; 

Okay, well my conclusions from it were: TJ and Striker = mild/null vil and Matrim = mild elim. A lot of what he said, especially regarding overprotecting, coordinating, etc. reminded me of elim!me... which is maybe not the way to read people since my elim playstyle is obviously not going to be identical to anyone else's but at the same time I definitely saw some amount of what looked like narrative-building (as I believe Striker pointed out somewhere).

I do think Striker's comment about voting for Matrim "for having reasoning" was a bit odd... hence null vil on him. But I think I see what he meant--that A. because Matrim was voting seriously, there was reasoning to look at (you can't say a joke vote is AI, after all, because it's not) and B. people who vote with conviction early on in D1, especially a D1 like this when there was virtually no serious discussion happening at the time, do end up looking a bit odd, since a villager would have nothing to go off of. Especially in this game, it's more important to avoid mix's.

24 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

TL;DR I am voting on Striker for him suggesting we overprotect now (which may cause a speedy loss in the later cycles) and for continually voting me for less and less stable reasons. Not that they were stable in the first place, as they came directly because I voted him 

I'm... like, almost 100% certain that you and Striker mean two completely different things when you refer to overprotection. Striker means "having 1 or 2 extra Defense so that if someone contributing gets RBd, we aren't overrun because of that". You seem to mean something much more drastic than that.

Also, you seem concerned about us using up chalk--as if having fewer people drawing Lines of Warding is going to help with that? I would guess that a lot of people who don't draw Lines of Warding tonight, or who don't have another Item to use, will use their Chalk to draw other Lines. I know I will, if I don't RNG that I'll be Warding tonight. If you're worried about us running out of Chalk you might try to address that as well, instead of just arguing for fewer Lines of Warding.

Edit: Also, I'd like to point out something that I had in my original post: there is, in fact, a benefit to making it widely known that you have a Specialization. It paints a target on your back, yeah, but everyone can see it, not just the elims. Since everyone right now has the potential to protect someone else with a Line of Forbiddance, the elims will theoretically think twice about attacking obvious targets since those targets A. might be protecting themselves, which would require the elims to use up Chalk to RB them and B. might be protected by someone else, in which case the elims would have used up a Chalk and a kill for nothing. That's why I didn't feel super uncomfortable sharing that I have a Specialization, and that's why I don't think it's a problem that Striker said he was trying to get one.

Also, people keep treating Specializations like they're fairly important (myself included actually : P), like roles in other games, when they're... really... not? Yeah, they give you a boost on one ability, but that's only helpful if you have Chalk, and it doesn't mean you'll be using your enhanced ability every turn. The Items are what's really important in this game, not the Specializations.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Quinn0928

[Mat he/him]

22 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

EDIT: Well, I should’ve looked at Mat’s post before I sent mine. I’ll wait for him to respond to this before I respond to his post.

My response to that would have been just the post before, though at this point it's less about the overprotecting thing anyway and more about your push on me, which I still can't make sense of.

21 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

Okay, well my conclusions from it were: TJ and Striker = mild/null vil and Matrim = mild elim. A lot of what he said, especially regarding overprotecting, coordinating, etc. reminded me of elim!me... which is maybe not the way to read people since my elim playstyle is obviously not going to be identical to anyone else's but at the same time I definitely saw some amount of what looked like narrative-building (as I believe Striker pointed out somewhere).

Yeah my playstyle is nothing like yours so this isn't a good reason at all (aight maybe 'nothing like yours' is an overexaggeration but I definitely don't play elim like you do)

Which reminds me: @TJ Shade- your vote was warranted but was also a misunderstanding and has no merit anymore.

22 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

Also, you seem concerned about us using up chalk--as if having fewer people drawing Lines of Warding is going to help with that? I would guess that a lot of people who don't draw Lines of Warding tonight, or who don't have another Item to use, will use their Chalk to draw other Lines. I know I will, if I don't RNG that I'll be Warding tonight. If you're worried about us running out of Chalk you might try to address that as well, instead of just arguing for fewer Lines of Warding.

If it wasn't clear, that is what I was addressing. I don't want us to run out of chalk N3-N4 and then just insta-die over three cycles. If everyone draws a line tonight then we're cooked.

23 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

Also, people keep treating Specializations like they're fairly important (myself included actually : P), like roles in other games, when they're... really... not? Yeah, they give you a boost on one ability, but that's only helpful if you have Chalk, and it doesn't mean you'll be using your enhanced ability every turn. The Items are what's really important in this game, not the Specializations.

On this vein- don't kill me! I have a useful item! Yeah! :P.

[Quintessential she/her]

1 minute ago, Matrim's Dice said:

If it wasn't clear, that is what I was addressing. I don't want us to run out of chalk N3-N4 and then just insta-die over three cycles. If everyone draws a line tonight then we're cooked.

I... yeah, no that wasn't clear at all. You were responding to Striker saying "overprotecting is okay" with "no it isn't" which... just doesn't really address the question of whether attempting to convince people to moderate the Lines of Warding actually saves us Chalk. My guess is that it doesn't.

3 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Yeah my playstyle is nothing like yours so this isn't a good reason at all (aight maybe 'nothing like yours' is an overexaggeration but I definitely don't play elim like you do)

I'm gonna have to go back through all the posts I got that conclusion from and point out specifically where I saw it and why it makes me sus of you, aren't I... ughhhh why did I hit refreshhhhh

[StrikerEZ he/him]

33 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Bold mine, again. Striker is seeming to suggest that it's suspicious for me to have reasoning, Which it's not...

Okay, to be clear: I was trying to say two things at once. The first being that it’s concerning that there’s only like...2-3 players posting reasoning and we only like 9 hours left in the turn. 

The second thing I was trying to say is that, because you were one of the few actually posting reasoning, I was able to go through and find flaws in your reasoning.

35 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Bold mine just now. This was the reason I voted Striker originally, and I included the book thing as sort of a second afterthought because I misunderstood what Alv meant.

Okay, I see what your primary reasoning is now. I still think the book thing was you picking reasoning opportunistically.

6 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

If it wasn't clear, that is what I was addressing. I don't want us to run out of chalk N3-N4 and then just insta-die over three cycles. If everyone draws a line tonight then we're cooked.

This isn’t what I’m suggesting though. I’m literally just saying that I’d prefer we have 1-2 extra protects each night to avoid roleblocks and stuff. Even if we go overboard a bit, there’s like, what, 3 maps? Plus someone probably started with one as well. It just seems way too odd to me that you’re so adamant about not accounting for roleblocks and stuff. It would be way too easy for the elims to mess us up if we don’t overprotect at least a little.

Anyway, I’m sorry for the misunderstandings, but I still think you’re worth voting on. 

[Ookla-son-son-Ventyl]

4 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

Okay, to be clear: I was trying to say two things at once. The first being that it’s concerning that there’s only like...2-3 players posting reasoning and we only like 9 hours left in the turn. 

The second thing I was trying to say is that, because you were one of the few actually posting reasoning, I was able to go through and find flaws in your reasoning.

Okay, I see what your primary reasoning is now. I still think the book thing was you picking reasoning opportunistically.

This isn’t what I’m suggesting though. I’m literally just saying that I’d prefer we have 1-2 extra protects each night to avoid roleblocks and stuff. Even if we go overboard a bit, there’s like, what, 3 maps? Plus someone probably started with one as well. It just seems way too odd to me that you’re so adamant about not accounting for roleblocks and stuff. It would be way too easy for the elims to mess us up if we don’t overprotect at least a little.

Anyway, I’m sorry for the misunderstandings, but I still think you’re worth voting on. 

I’ve started with Chalk so...

Also, I don’t think I’ll vote Matrim anymore. They’ve seem to have cleared up the little misunderstanding, and contrary to Striker, I don’t think they are still worth voting on.

[|TJ| he/him]

8 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Which reminds me: @TJ Shade- your vote was warranted but was also a misunderstanding and has no merit anymore.

I believe misunderstanding stems from seeing things from different viewpoints. 

I think it's fairly reasonable for a villager to correctly understand that Alv meant going for books might make you a kill target. You misunderstanding it as "elims want powerful stuff and hence they'll go for books" is a thought possible to have arisen from an elim viewpoint. Hence, the vote.

[Mat he/him]

17 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

I... yeah, no that wasn't clear at all. You were responding to Striker saying "overprotecting is okay" with "no it isn't" which... just doesn't really address the question of whether attempting to convince people to moderate the Lines of Warding actually saves us Chalk. My guess is that it doesn't.

In that case, sorry my bad  Not everyone has the same train of thought as me (focusing solely all our rithmatics onto protecting the camp's defense) and that's my problem for not explaining that. Moderating the Lines of Warding only saves us chalk if it's the only line drawn. It won't be, but because it's the only one I was really considering I automatically assumed the same was true for all. Which it's not :/

17 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

I'm gonna have to go back through all the posts I got that conclusion from and point out specifically where I saw it and why it makes me sus of you, aren't I... ughhhh why did I hit refreshhhhh

That would be nice, yes :P.

10 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

Okay, to be clear: I was trying to say two things at once. The first being that it’s concerning that there’s only like...2-3 players posting reasoning and we only like 9 hours left in the turn. 

Agreed

10 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

The second thing I was trying to say is that, because you were one of the few actually posting reasoning, I was able to go through and find flaws in your reasoning.

The pains of trying to be helpful  The flaws were there, but I think I've addressed them appropriately.

10 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

Okay, I see what your primary reasoning is now. I still think the book thing was you picking reasoning opportunistically.

I mean... it kind of was? In a village sort of way. It was like- I saw the overprotection thing and disagreed, and then thought 'hey that's kind of a skimpy reason for a vote, I remember this other thing that kinda is against Striker too' so I stuck that in there. Not malicious, just trying to put a bit more actual evidence behind a vote in a cycle that as you pointed out has been lacking actual evidence. Now, granted, that 'actual evidence' I was doing my best to supply turned out to be incorrect, but hey, it's the thought that counts, right?  

10 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

This isn’t what I’m suggesting though. I’m literally just saying that I’d prefer we have 1-2 extra protects each night to avoid roleblocks and stuff. Even if we go overboard a bit, there’s like, what, 3 maps? Plus someone probably started with one as well. It just seems way too odd to me that you’re so adamant about not accounting for roleblocks and stuff. It would be way too easy for the elims to mess us up if we don’t overprotect at least a little.

Anyway, I’m sorry for the misunderstandings, but I still think you’re worth voting on. 

I see what you're saying now, and it makes more sense. 

I'm not adamant about not accounting for roleblocks though, I'm the one that is so against coordinating in thread or PMs because that'd make it easier to be roleblocked.

I'm also sorry for the misunderstandings, and however strange your thoughts on me are I can see where they could come from a villager. Striker.

Gears, for self preservation.

Ahhhh the ninjas just let me post this xD

3 minutes ago, TJ Shade said:

I believe misunderstanding stems from seeing things from different viewpoints. 

I think it's fairly reasonable for a villager to correctly understand that Alv meant going for books might make you a kill target. You misunderstanding it as "elims want powerful stuff and hence they'll go for books" is a thought possible to have arisen from an elim viewpoint. Hence, the vote.

It wasn't but whatever I guess :P.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Matrim's Dice
and like everyone ignored my sort of item claim so that's cool :P

[Quintessential she/her]

Here's your mega-post. My notifications have informed me that you've posted again since the last time I hit refresh, but I don't want to lose this so I'll respond to whatever it is you just said later (assuming the notifications aren't just being weird and registering the last post I quoted, which could be the case). (Edit: it was just them registering that last post on a delay : P)

On 1/28/2021 at 10:53 PM, Matrim's Dice said:

So, I don't think we can to afford to overprotect if we don't have to. Later cycles we'll be very sorry if we've used up all of our chalk, and the more paranoid folks should have us covered until then.

And didn't Alv say that going for a book puts a target on your back? Striker! Welcome to the game  

I know you say that the book thing was just an afterthought, but the way this post is structured definitely makes it seem like the main event, while the first part was in the same vein as the arguments over the RNG plan later--yes, we disagree, but that doesn't mean I think you're elim in and of itself.

On 1/28/2021 at 11:08 PM, Matrim's Dice said:

What would be the benefit of Striker saying he's going for books, though? I get the thing about making sure you get it, but if it makes him a better target for the elims it's an odd statement for someone who was just talking about how they die early often to make

The benefits have been point out already, and the fact that there's no cost has been stated repeatedly. I see your point here with it being an odd statement for someone who dies early a lot to make (ergo Striker is elim and isn't worried about being targeted because of that) except that if he got the book it'd be announced anyway so him saying it in-thread changes nothing.

On 1/28/2021 at 11:44 PM, Matrim's Dice said:

It's early early D1. What am I supposed to do if not purposefully vote? I could say the same about yours.

I mean, it does... just, coordinating in thread to make this happen would make it so the elims didn't even have to get lucky to roleblock someone, they'd already know based on who says they're doing it. I just don't want everyone to be using their chalk up in the first three cycles so that we just get overrun three times in a row later on. 

This was the post that first set off alarm bells for me, for like... alllll the reasons. People don't usually purposefully vote early early on D1, especially not during a Day when so little of substance has been said. If you'd been voting based on "this person normally plays like this when they're elim, and they do this thing when they're vil that I'm not seeing them do right now" that'd be one thing--though still probably not very useful since like half the players in this game decided they'd intentionally switch playstyles--but that's not what this was. This part reminds me a lot of the votes put on Straw during D1 of the AG for suggesting that the neutrals claim--yeah, you can argue that the reasoning is faulty but that's not AI.

And the second part... first of all, there was never any suggestion of coordinating in-thread (not that I saw) so idk where that came from. But that was a misunderstanding and I don't count it as AI. But the part about not wanting everyone to be using their chalk in the first three cycles... well, arguing against overprotecting is, as I've said, not going to accomplish that since people will just use their Chalk for other Lines. Also, there are other items that protect, so Chalk is not the end-all-be-all of Defense, and we have Maps that can probably get us plenty enough of both those Items and more Chalk for us to sustain ourselves. Yes, we don't want to put up 8 Defense each Night while the Chalkling Hoard has a Strength of 2, but assuming we'll be safe with just 2 Defense is probably idealistic, even if we could find a way to coordinate that without the elims catching on and RBing one of the Defenders. Also the idea of using up all defense in the first three cycles feels like fearmongering to me--I was ninja'd by one of your posts in writing this and you've addressed most of my content objections to it but the read I got from it is still very very much there.

On 1/29/2021 at 11:42 AM, Matrim's Dice said:

This idea I like, actually. Better than any form of planned infiltratable coordinating, PMs or not, I think. Though it'd need wide participation.

I mean... on its own this post actually reads vil to me. The RNG plan has a low chance of failure and would be difficult for the elims to effectively interfere with. However, it directly contradicts Matrim's earlier worries about wasting chalk, since by RNG we actually could end up with 8 Defense against 2 Strength. And the next post kinda undermines it:

On 1/29/2021 at 11:59 AM, Matrim's Dice said:

I mean, I'm also down with the common sense plan: No plan, per se, everyone just do what you think makes the most sense  

Honestly that might just work the best :P.

Alternatively, we each could just ask Alv

See, with everyone doing what they think makes most sense, we also end up wasting a lot of Chalk. Because enough people will worry about the Defense level being too low that it'll end up being too high. Kind of a reverse Tragedy of the Commons. Well, or we get the actual Tragedy of the Commons, where it works at first but then the people who were Defending run out of Chalk and the Hoard Strength increases so the solution that worked at the start doesn't work anymore because the people who have the will to Defend don't have the way, and the people who have the way don't have the will. Basically this is just a bunch of contradictions of your earlier worries.

12 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

People I'd be ok with exeing (in [rough] order):

• Connie: Thing Illwei said/Gut in PMs
• Striker: Mild disagreement/Weird fixation on me/Gut
• Archer: I don't like their vote, even for D1
• Quinn: Very slight gut

People I would not be ok with exeing:

• Me: Obvious reasons are obvious  
• Gears: Gets killed early a lot and his claim is noooo reason to kill him
• Random Bystander: Is new
• Araris: Gut vil. That can't possibly go wrong.

Everyone else I could care less, I think.

I find it odd that you list Connie above Striker as to people you'd be ok with exeing but you're also not voting her. 

12 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I don't see what sets me apart with... literally everyone else that's voted, though. Either you're tunneling cause my vote is placed on you or doing the very thing you're accusing me of. 'Course, we both might be tunneling

I'm... so confused by this? I'm pretty sure I saw (and deleted 'cause I thought they weren't AI) a couple of quotes from you about how it kinda makes sense for Striker to single you out because you A. are voting him and B. were the first person to place a vote with actual (and arguably flawed) reasoning. That is more than enough reason for Striker to look more closely at you : P.

 

2 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

It's less about the book now. I misunderstood what Alv said when I brought up the book.

Again, not about the book anymore.

When I said that, I wasn't thinking mathematically and did no calculations, so it's understandable that you disagree  

It wasn't even just about the book do I need to go back and quote the post for you all to read again?

And the blocking possibility is why I don't want to do something like that. The RNG removes that worry, and Araris and Devotary already showed that the math checks out fine.

@Sart can I get a vote count?

To all the people on Gears: Why?

Okay, so here you say "it's less about the book now"... implying that it was about the book before? But now you're arguing that it wasn't about the book at all? There's discontinuity here--vil!you would have no reason not to say "yeah the book was part of the reason originally but I've realized that's not AI--however I still think that Striker might be evil". elim!you might.

2 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Currently I'm voting Striker, who finds me suspicious for having reasoning. 

: P yes I agree Striker's wording was confusing there, so this is a fair criticism. Though, on the other had, I feel like saying something like that is a bit TWTBAW.

1 hour ago, Matrim's Dice said:

...It’s not about the book. I’ve said that so many times -__- 

Er... welllllll not exactly?

"And didn't Alv say that going for a book puts a target on your back? Striker! Welcome to the game  "

"What would be the benefit of Striker saying he's going for books, though? I get the thing about making sure you get it, but if it makes him a better target for the elims it's an odd statement for someone who was just talking about how they die early often to make "

"It's less about the book now. I misunderstood what Alv said when I brought up the book." (emphasis mine)

pretty sure it was about the book originally : P

1 hour ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Bold mine just now. This was the reason I voted Striker originally, and I included the book thing as sort of a second afterthought because I misunderstood what Alv meant.

Where I back off the book thing entirely on page 2 and people still think it's my reason somehow.

 

TL;DR I am voting on Striker for him suggesting we overprotect now (which may cause a speedy loss in the later cycles) and for continually voting me for less and less stable reasons. Not that they were stable in the first place, as they came directly because I voted him 

Don't make me vote Gears in self pres though :P. I don't want to.

People thought it was your reasoning because you phrased the post that way. That in and of itself isn't AI but you later tried to distance yourself from the whole book think entirely, saying not only that it isn't your reasoning now but that it wasn't before either, when it seems pretty obvious that it was.

I'd prefer a speedy loss in later cycles to a speedy loss now. The only ways to avoid some amount of overprotection involve coordinating among the entire group, which then makes it laughably easy for the elims to mess it up. The options are some amount of overprotection (and how much is not within our control unless we mass-coordinate) now with the potential to lose later or actually just losing now.

1 hour ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Yeah my playstyle is nothing like yours so this isn't a good reason at all (aight maybe 'nothing like yours' is an overexaggeration but I definitely don't play elim like you do)

That's fair looking over the rest of these posts it's not even that they remind me of my own vil playstyle--they just feel elim. Fabricated, trying to minimize suspicion on yourself and redirect it elsewhere, building somewhat of a narrative around the importance of not overprotecting--which, by the way, is something that benefits the elims at least in the short term--and so on.

44 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

That would be nice, yes :P.

Here it is!  

44 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I mean... it kind of was? In a village sort of way. It was like- I saw the overprotection thing and disagreed, and then thought 'hey that's kind of a skimpy reason for a vote, I remember this other thing that kinda is against Striker too' so I stuck that in there. Not malicious, just trying to put a bit more actual evidence behind a vote in a cycle that as you pointed out has been lacking actual evidence. Now, granted, that 'actual evidence' I was doing my best to supply turned out to be incorrect, but hey, it's the thought that counts, right?  

Ohhhh so so so many alarm bells... "In a village sort of way"? I can't imagine a universe in which a villager would feel the need to say that. Like, at all. If you are a villager, everything you do is done "in a village sort of way". Villagers don't have to stop and think about that--elims do.

"I saw the overprotection thing and disagreed, and then thought 'hey that's kind of a skimpy reason for a vote, I remember this other thing that kinda is against Striker too' so I stuck that in there." This describes the exact thought process behind a lot of my vote posts in the past couple of games, when I was an elim. Again, not a village thing to do. If you (as a villager) look at a person and say 'hey this person is kinda sus', you would probably look for more evidence one way or another, but it's so you can figure out if your suspicions are founded, not so you have more of a reason to vote. The former is a village thought process, the latter an elim one.

And like. All the rest of that post too. D1 votes don't generally have, or have to have, actual evidence behind them. Actually, later votes don't always have actual evidence behind them either. Elim!me has always felt pressure to provide "actual evidence" as opposed to just reads, because reads are subjective and can be argued with and it's hard to know as an elim whether my "read" of someone is genuine and will be seen by other people or is being influenced by TMI. Village!me (and, I think, village!everyone else too) is more comfortable voting based on reads or thinner evidence. The fact that your vote post, and all of your posts until recently, don't actually mention your read of Striker seems odd to me, since all the village has D1 is reads really. 

If you have an item, it goes into the Camp Supply if and when you die. Claiming important Items isn't going to help your case with us, and if you really are village it does exactly what you thought Striker shouldn't do--it paints a target on your back. Village!you would be worried that the elims would attack you even if you did survive the exe, to try to get ahold of the important item. Either we lose it this Day or we lose it this Night, essentially, unless you can argue your way out of the vote.

Edited January 30, 2021 by Quinn0928

[Ashbringer he/him]

1 minute ago, Quinn0928 said:

Er... welllllll not exactly?

"And didn't Alv say that going for a book puts a target on your back? Striker! Welcome to the game  "

"What would be the benefit of Striker saying he's going for books, though? I get the thing about making sure you get it, but if it makes him a better target for the elims it's an odd statement for someone who was just talking about how they die early often to make "

"It's less about the book now. I misunderstood what Alv said when I brought up the book." (emphasis mine)

pretty sure it was about the book originally : P

Pretty sure this counts as a vote on Striker ‘cause it’s not in a quote box.

[Quintessential she/her]

Just now, Ashbringer said:

Pretty sure this counts as a vote on Striker ‘cause it’s not in a quote box.

Fixed, thanks for the heads-up

[STINK he/him]

go nuts with the votes

[+Lotus she/her]

I'd prefer not to have my nonsense partner lynched D1...

[StrikerEZ he/him]

@Quinn0928 You basically nailed my reasonings for voting on Mat. It feels like he’s got a lot of answers for his vote on me...but it all feels like things an elim would think, to me.

[Flyingbooks]

I'll join the vote on Matrim.

edie: Archer

Edited January 30, 2021 by Flyingbooks

[Mat he/him]

4 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

I know you say that the book thing was just an afterthought, but the way this post is structured definitely makes it seem like the main event, while the first part was in the same vein as the arguments over the RNG plan later--yes, we disagree, but that doesn't mean I think you're elim in and of itself.

Well, it wasn't :P. So you can know that if it looks like it was structured like that, it sure wasn't supposed to be.

6 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

This was the post that first set off alarm bells for me, for like... alllll the reasons. People don't usually purposefully vote early early on D1, especially not during a Day when so little of substance has been said. If you'd been voting based on "this person normally plays like this when they're elim, and they do this thing when they're vil that I'm not seeing them do right now" that'd be one thing--though still probably not very useful since like half the players in this game decided they'd intentionally switch playstyles--but that's not what this was. This part reminds me a lot of the votes put on Straw during D1 of the AG for suggesting that the neutrals claim--yeah, you can argue that the reasoning is faulty but that's not AI.

That's a fair comparison, actually. But if the mere fact that I have reasoning sets of alarm bells, that is a problem. I shouldn't be killed for having reasoning alone. And I know that this isn't the only reason but like- people keep bringing it up like it's a reason to suspect me.

8 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

And the second part... [1]first of all, there was never any suggestion of coordinating in-thread (not that I saw) so idk where that came from. But that was a misunderstanding and I don't count it as AI. [2]But the part about not wanting everyone to be using their chalk in the first three cycles... well, arguing against overprotecting is, as I've said, not going to accomplish that since people will just use their Chalk for other Lines.

[1] It came from me wondering where else people would coordinate effectively. The only other option is PMs.

[2] As I've already addressed, this came from the mindset of someone only planning to use their chalk to up the defense and automatically assuming most people would do the same. I didn't really consider that everyone would draw a line regardless, so my argument against overprotection was basically- draw a line of Warding or don't draw a line at all. That way we can have more chalk for later. Though if everyone is just gonna draw other lines that goes out the window. (Course, if everyone draws other lines we'll run out anyway so don't do that everyone)

13 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

I mean... on its own this post actually reads vil to me. The RNG plan has a low chance of failure and would be difficult for the elims to effectively interfere with. However, it directly contradicts Matrim's earlier worries about wasting chalk, since by RNG we actually could end up with 8 Defense against 2 Strength. And the next post kinda undermines it:

It doesn't directly contradict it if you do the math, actually. Especially with the 1/5 odds.

14 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

See, with everyone doing what they think makes most sense, we also end up wasting a lot of Chalk. Because enough people will worry about the Defense level being too low that it'll end up being too high. Kind of a reverse Tragedy of the Commons. Well, or we get the actual Tragedy of the Commons, where it works at first but then the people who were Defending run out of Chalk and the Hoard Strength increases so the solution that worked at the start doesn't work anymore because the people who have the will to Defend don't have the way, and the people who have the way don't have the will. Basically this is just a bunch of contradictions of your earlier worries.

100% fair. Not quite sure why I thought that. I want the RNG plan, to be clear.

14 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

I find it odd that you list Connie above Striker as to people you'd be ok with exeing but you're also not voting her. 

The keyword there is it was in rough order. I'm not voting Connie because I'm voting for self preservation. I'd much much rather exe Connie than Gears but I'd also rather exe anyone over me since I am the only confirmed vil (to me) and I have a good item.

16 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

I'm... so confused by this? I'm pretty sure I saw (and deleted 'cause I thought they weren't AI) a couple of quotes from you about how it kinda makes sense for Striker to single you out because you A. are voting him and B. were the first person to place a vote with actual (and arguably flawed) reasoning. That is more than enough reason for Striker to look more closely at you : P.

This was me forgetting how early I voted :P.

16 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

Okay, so here you say "it's less about the book now"... implying that it was about the book before? But now you're arguing that it wasn't about the book at all? There's discontinuity here--vil!you would have no reason not to say "yeah the book was part of the reason originally but I've realized that's not AI--however I still think that Striker might be evil". elim!you might.

Urghrhgrhgrhg it's not confusing

It was about the book for approximately two seconds until the misunderstanding was cleared up.

The book was part of the reason originally but I've realized that was NAI. I had reasons to still suspect Striker, and though I still kind of do it's not as much thanks to his explaining himself now.

18 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

People thought it was your reasoning because you phrased the post that way. That in and of itself isn't AI but you later tried to distance yourself from the whole book think entirely, saying not only that it isn't your reasoning now but that it wasn't before either, when it seems pretty obvious that it was.

It wasn't meant to be the main reasoning. If the post looks like it was to everyone else them bringing it up over and over makes more sense, but it's confusing to me who looks at my wording as the book being the afterthought.

20 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

I'd prefer a speedy loss in later cycles to a speedy loss now. The only ways to avoid some amount of overprotection involve coordinating among the entire group, which then makes it laughably easy for the elims to mess it up. The options are some amount of overprotection (and how much is not within our control unless we mass-coordinate) now with the potential to lose later or actually just losing now.

The some overprotection is fine. I just didn't want everyone to draw a line of warding feeling the need to 'just in case'

20 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

Ohhhh so so so many alarm bells... "In a village sort of way"? I can't imagine a universe in which a villager would feel the need to say that. Like, at all. If you are a villager, everything you do is done "in a village sort of way". Villagers don't have to stop and think about that--elims do.

Exactly 

That's- why I bring this up. If Striker thinks something is elim for me to do, I'm going to explain why it's village. I don't get why you think it's weird for me to be looking for evidence. That's kind of the goal of the game. Villagers definitely have to think about it, otherwise it's a bunch of gut reads.

22 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

"I saw the overprotection thing and disagreed, and then thought 'hey that's kind of a skimpy reason for a vote, I remember this other thing that kinda is against Striker too' so I stuck that in there." This describes the exact thought process behind a lot of my vote posts in the past couple of games, when I was an elim. Again, not a village thing to do. If you (as a villager) look at a person and say 'hey this person is kinda sus', you would probably look for more evidence one way or another, but it's so you can figure out if your suspicions are founded, not so you have more of a reason to vote. The former is a village thought process, the latter an elim one.

I don't know how to reply to this because the thought process is a village one. For me. Right then. I can't say anything else :P. The rest of those remarks too- you can say all you want how evil that thought process looks (TWTBAW much???) but it wasn't evil. 

23 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

If you have an item, it goes into the Camp Supply if and when you die. Claiming important Items isn't going to help your case with us, and if you really are village it does exactly what you thought Striker shouldn't do--it paints a target on your back. Village!you would be worried that the elims would attack you even if you did survive the exe, to try to get ahold of the important item. Either we lose it this Day or we lose it this Night, essentially, unless you can argue your way out of the vote.

But in the Camp Supply it isn't in a village hands. In mine it is.

And I'm not worried about being killed. The elims obviously are gonna see me as a misexe target so I am not concerned about being NKd any time soon.

hahahahahhahahaha this is the universe telling me to get off the Shard isn't it

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

2 hours ago, Gears said:

If 5 elims, every Rithmatist started with Chalk, we have 16 Defense now. 10 Defense in the Camp Supply, 3 Maps, if Maps grant current Camp Supply, we're more than covered with 56 Defense over the course of the game compared to a requisite 47. The Defense cost is higher if the elims hit the thief and non-Rithmatist first, but lower if they don't have the Shadowblaze at all times, so I think this is an OK estimation. Oddly enough, we need less Defense when there are more elims, since less mixes. In conclusion: I think we can afford a few extra Defense early on, especially this assumed that the elims had the Shadowblaze for all 12 hypothetical cycles.]

Araris: Gods of Luck and Chance? [I don't think this is a good idea. I'd rather divide the player list into random groups that are each responsible for 1 Defense total and that group decides in PM who donates and that person RNGs which turn to do so or just coordinate in thread and RNG which turn to act upon. Though that is subject to all elims just blocking everyone, that means they'll be out of chalk.]

Maps absolutely do not grant anything close to the current camp supply. They'll drop a few of the rare items we don't have access to now like guns and Shadowblaze, not ten extra defense items. With constant mixes, we'll run out of defense well before cycle 12.

What size groups were you wanting? The bigger the group the more likely it is to have an elim who would know who was responsible for contributing the defense, and the only one who can trust that a number was actually randomly generated is the person who randomly decided.

2 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

And the blocking possibility is why I don't want to do something like that. The RNG removes that worry, and Araris and Devotary already showed that the math checks out fine.

The math checks out as in 'we probably won't get overrun tonight', not 'this is the most efficient way to protect the camp'. It should be good enough until PM coordination can start happening without major concerns that the elims will know who to block.

1 hour ago, Quinn0928 said:

Also, you seem concerned about us using up chalk--as if having fewer people drawing Lines of Warding is going to help with that? I would guess that a lot of people who don't draw Lines of Warding tonight, or who don't have another Item to use, will use their Chalk to draw other Lines. I know I will, if I don't RNG that I'll be Warding tonight. If you're worried about us running out of Chalk you might try to address that as well, instead of just arguing for fewer Lines of Warding.

Edit: Also, I'd like to point out something that I had in my original post: there is, in fact, a benefit to making it widely known that you have a Specialization. It paints a target on your back, yeah, but everyone can see it, not just the elims. Since everyone right now has the potential to protect someone else with a Line of Forbiddance, the elims will theoretically think twice about attacking obvious targets since those targets A. might be protecting themselves, which would require the elims to use up Chalk to RB them and B. might be protected by someone else, in which case the elims would have used up a Chalk and a kill for nothing. That's why I didn't feel super uncomfortable sharing that I have a Specialization, and that's why I don't think it's a problem that Striker said he was trying to get one.

I would not expect a lot of people to use their chalk to do anything other than draw lines of warding when we don't really have a good idea how much defense we're going to need over the course of the game. Every other line is only useful if you have a good idea that you're hitting the right target at the right time.

1 hour ago, StrikerEZ said:

Even if we go overboard a bit, there’s like, what, 3 maps? Plus someone probably started with one as well. It just seems way too odd to me that you’re so adamant about not accounting for roleblocks and stuff. It would be way too easy for the elims to mess us up if we don’t overprotect at least a little.

Again, maps aren't that valuable for defense, and I sincerely doubt that anyone started the game with any items other than chalk. If anyone who played LG57 started that game with something in addition to chalk, now is the time to say so(though the rules aren't quite the same as they were in LG 57 even beyond secrets being revealed). You are right that some overprotection will be necessary to avoid elim roleblocks, though they're less likely to try roleblocking people who are making decisions at random.

[Mat he/him]

1 minute ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

I sincerely doubt that anyone started the game with any items other than chalk.

I did :P.

[Ashbringer he/him]

15 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I did :P.

What item?

If you die with it here (or to a vengeful Elim kill) it goes back into the supply. So it's not exactly going to be hidden forever... although I suppose it could fall in your opposing faction's hands.

[Mat he/him]

4 minutes ago, Ashbringer said:

What item?

If you die with it here (or to a vengeful Elim kill) it goes back into the supply. So it's not exactly going to be hidden forever... although I suppose it could fall in your opposing faction's hands.

I'll PM you. I'd rather not let the elims know before I die and I relatively trust you. If you're an elim, uh, whoops?  

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

12 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

That's a fair comparison, actually. But if the mere fact that I have reasoning sets of alarm bells, that is a problem. I shouldn't be killed for having reasoning alone. And I know that this isn't the only reason but like- people keep bringing it up like it's a reason to suspect me.

[2] As I've already addressed, this came from the mindset of someone only planning to use their chalk to up the defense and automatically assuming most people would do the same. I didn't really consider that everyone would draw a line regardless, so my argument against overprotection was basically- draw a line of Warding or don't draw a line at all. That way we can have more chalk for later. Though if everyone is just gonna draw other lines that goes out the window. (Course, if everyone draws other lines we'll run out anyway so don't do that everyone)

It wasn't meant to be the main reasoning. If the post looks like it was to everyone else them bringing it up over and over makes more sense, but it's confusing to me who looks at my wording as the book being the afterthought.

I did :P.

In general, looking for extra reasoning to convince other people to vote for someone you already suspect might help get that person killed, but it doesn't do a good job in helping you pick the correct exe target. You'd need to already be confident in your read of that person, either by accumulation of previous evidence or by knowing their alignment by virtue of being evil. It's not clear that's what you were trying to do since you did retract the book reasoning after being corrected by TJ and it seemed like you personally did temporarily think wanting to go for a book was suspicious.

I think Quinn is the only one strongly advocating for other lines, though perhaps other people share that opinion. It's possible we'll have the leeway to do that.

The book thing looks like the main reasoning because you put your vote after mentioning it instead of where you talked about overprotecting.

Even less of a strict LG 57 rerun than before! I guess this can help defense a little, but I'll still believe that maps haven't changed to suddenly produce a mountain of defense items unless Sart actively proves me wrong.

[Quintessential she/her]

There are quite possibly errors in this as I put it together rather quickly, but here's a VC:

Gears (4): STINK, Araris Valerian, Kasimir, Matrim's Dice
Random Bystander (1): Mist
Matrim's Dice (4): TJ Shade, StrikerEZ, Quinn0928, Flyingbooks
Flyingbooks (2): Ashbringer, Archer
Condensation (1): Illwei

[Ashbringer he/him]

Whenever a person with items dies, they'll drop their items back into the shop. So that's a source of more Chalk if a morbid one.

[Mat he/him]

Huh I just realized I technically could use Silencing to save myself

I don't know if that's worth it though. If I survive would I really just be brushed off? No, people would think it'd look worse. So to my grave I go...

[Illwei]

Woke up to lots of posts! yey!!! wish I was here for this as I am (having just woke up) really not ...absorbing? Just- I'm having trouble thinking so If I say anything suspicious here I am not responsible :P.

3 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Currently I'm voting Striker, who finds me suspicious for having reasoning. 

I read through this and it was addressed. I'll also say this later- but Mat seems overly fixated on this one point. I don't think that's AI, but as it goes on it feels like an Elim who is annoyed that he's getting called out for something that shouldn't exist.

Either way, if this was the case, I agree. This isn't the case, but if it were, he'd be right :P. It does look like, In Striker's post, that he's going after Matrim for having any reasoning, which is normally a village tell- trying to conjure up reasoning outta nowhere to actually start the discussion. When Striker tried to have that discussion though, Matrim locked on to striker so- idk.

5 hours ago, Quinn0928 said:

Reading people is hard. I'm starting to understand why everyone likes being elim so much XD this isn't something you have to worry about then...

Wait okay my quotes didn't go in order what anyways this quote is off topic :P.

but anyways- not why I personally like being Elim btw :P. I feel like you still have to read people- not for alignments and whatnot though. just tin general :P.  Also I like the scheming. Definitely don't like being elim because I think it's 'easier' :P.

5 hours ago, Quinn0928 said:

I would wager is not the case because in my experience the C1 elim kill is generally a shot in the dark so anyone with a Specialization would become a prime target.

I mean, not everyone plays elim like you, Quinn :P. don't judge people off of your own meta :P.

48 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

implying that it was about the book before?

Why did I quote this? ...

25 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I shouldn't be killed for having reasoning alone. And I know that this isn't the only reason but like- people keep bringing it up like it's a reason to suspect me.

Ah, yes. this.

"I shouldn't be killed for having reasoning alone"

This is what really really really sounds like an Elim. An elim who knows he should be caught, but not for this reason. Because I agree, having reasoning shouldn't be the reason someone is killed, when I stand by my statement that even having bad reasoning reads more village to me, early on.

1 hour ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Gears, for self preservation.

It's a bit early huh for self pres votes?

47 minutes ago, Quinn0928 said:

People don't usually purposefully vote early early on D1, especially not during a Day when so little of substance has been said. If you'd been voting based on "this person normally plays like this when they're elim, and they do this thing when they're vil that I'm not seeing them do right now" that'd be one thing--though still probably not very useful since like half the players in this game decided they'd intentionally switch playstyles--but that's not what this was. This part reminds me a lot of the votes put on Straw during D1 of the AG for suggesting that the neutrals claim--yeah, you can argue that the reasoning is faulty but that's not AI.

I

I don't like this? I don't- I'm having trouble thinking here. but I don't like this?

Meta reasoning is not the only valid reasoning in the early game. What mat did, as I've said, is completely valid. Meta reasoning doesn't start useful discussions. other reasoning does. maybe little of substance had been said, but that's why you have to start saying something sometime. I'd also argue that there actually had been things of substance said. Had Alv and gears not posted their bits? had people not started (slowly) talking?

Either way, Mat trying to find reasoning that isn't there just...isn't AI? not on D1? because that's what we're trying to do? that's the only thing we can do?

 

[Mat he/him]

2 minutes ago, Illwei said:

This is what really really really sounds like an Elim. An elim who knows he should be caught, but not for this reason. Because I agree, having reasoning shouldn't be the reason someone is killed, when I stand by my statement that even having bad reasoning reads more village to me, early on.

In this situation what would I have been 'caught' by though. You're looking at it backwards, I'm a villager who's annoyed at the reasons being used to kill me  But I've said that enough

4 minutes ago, Illwei said:

It's a bit early huh for self pres votes?

Not really. 6ish hours left.

3 minutes ago, Illwei said:

I

I don't like this? I don't- I'm having trouble thinking here. but I don't like this?

Meta reasoning is not the only valid reasoning in the early game. What mat did, as I've said, is completely valid. Meta reasoning doesn't start useful discussions. other reasoning does. maybe little of substance had been said, but that's why you have to start saying something sometime. I'd also argue that there actually had been things of substance said. Had Alv and gears not posted their bits? had people not started (slowly) talking?

Either way, Mat trying to find reasoning that isn't there just...isn't AI? not on D1? because that's what we're trying to do? that's the only thing we can do?

^^^