Mid-Range Game 49: Lode of Luthadel

[StrikerEZ he/him]

7 minutes ago, Archer said:

Had I not had an elim read on Striker going in, I think I would have been happy to let their protection slide. I think the thread is leaning towards exing me first, so when I flip Thug, is the plan to exe Striker, thinking that the odds of him being e-mistborn or e-thug are greater than him being v-thug? I’m not sure the logic there quite checks out, but hey, I’ll be dead.

And what happens if you flip elim? Or if you do flip v!Thug, are you just suggesting I get exed for my role? Do we need to bring up AG2 (or was it AG3?) where the village exed/killed their way through all of the Smokers and not a single one was an elim? I wouldn't be too surprised at all if the elim teams were beefed up enough to account for the fact that the village has at least two Thugs. 

[---]

3 hours ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Ninja'd by Striker, who's post gives me a bad gut read.

So mindmeld here, which means... *counts on fingers* you're an elim this time? :P.

Honestly I went through trying to figure out what made me feel off, but the more I read it the more the things that didn't make sense made sense and it was just me misunderstanding so ?? I think Striker's phrasing or tone just always feels off in some way? :P.

49 minutes ago, The Unknown Order said:

I don't like how he's attempting to control the thread and how similar it is to the QF where he was elim.

I completely agree with this, and was also getting these vibes last cycle.

I'd also like to look at people who aren't Archer and Striker this cycle, because it seems that a number of people have latched onto them for some reason, when I agree here actually that going after them makes less sense, because they have 50% less chance of being an Elim than the other people. They technically are two people who we know for sure will die, but that doesn't feel like a good reason tbh :P.

46 minutes ago, Archer said:

The only reason I can think of why a lurcher would protect Striker is if they were their mistborn or if they were dating IRL. :eyes:

Someone else I think said something like this ^^ but I wanted to add to that: Striker often dies early, though usually to the vote, someone could have wanted to try and see him like through a game again :P.

43 minutes ago, Ashbringer said:

Archer was the GM of the QF...

Wait now I'm confused too. TUO wasn't there for QF 49, right??? he joined in...He joined in QF50. Archer was in that, right? but he wasn't an Elim in that.

But yeah
right now I'm thinking I don't want to kill either one of them, basically because I don't want to end up getting caught killing them both and then being at C4 with no info basically because we spent the last cycles killing off the Elims NK Targets

Like

Does no one realize how that's just... ??? because there's less chance that they are elims than basically anyone else ??

 

[PizzaPower55 he/him]

7 hours ago, Archer said:

They remind me of Breaker. Self-voting is generally a bad strategy. If you’re a villager, you should want to live, unless your flip produces some information.

idk i just did it cuz i knew it wouldn't actually do anything and i didnt know who to vote

[Quintessential she/her]

*rubs eyes* okay first of all, would like to point out that because of the way probability works, Archer and Striker are not any less likely to be elims than they were before! Look up the Monty Hall Problem. This is the same thing, but with slightly different probabilities. 

But having said that, Archer. Not because he's convinced me he's not elim, but because it occurred to me while I was catching up with the thread that we could just let him and Striker get NKd again, and focus our energy on others. The elim teams that attacked them can't know whether they hit a Thug or a Mistborn, which means that they'll want to hit them again to find out. Presumably. Obviously they could always decide not to, but I don't... really see what they'd gain from that. (Edit: The elims) attacking Archer and Striker doesn't give us any additional info about the elim teams, because they already did it once. And each one stands to gain from the possibility of taking out an enemy Mistborn.

Liranil for the same reasons/tinfoil as last cycle (plus I agree with whoever pointed it out that she's playing a bit more conservatively than usual).

Edited March 19, 2021 by Quintessential

[Biplet she/her]

7 hours ago, Archer said:

or if they were dating IRL. :eyes:

Bold of you to assume this makes me biased

[Shard of Reading he/him]

1 hour ago, Quintessential said:

Liranil for the same reasons/tinfoil as last cycle

This might be my bad memory, but have you ever explained the tinfoil?

[Quintessential she/her]

15 minutes ago, Shard of Reading said:

This might be my bad memory, but have you ever explained the tinfoil?

Basically, my thought is that it was odd that people voted STINK without much reasoning, and without any reasoning related to STINK himself. Normally I'd think that was elim coordination, but the elims can't coordinate this game, right? Except if they follow their Mistborn. So I was theorizing/tinfoiling that Liranil was elim-Mistborn (she was the second person to vote STINK) and then one or both (but probably just one : P) of [Striker, Biplet] was elim with her, and following her vote to try to signal that. Technically, Illwei voted STINK before Liranil did, so she's a possible (edit: e-Mistborn) candidate also, but she also voted way before the other three votes so I don't think that's as likely.

Am I grasping at straws? Yeah, pretty much. But our two major suspects from last cycle were STINK and Archer, with Illwei and Liranil just behind them. STINK's dead, I think we should just leave Archer to whichever elim team attacked him last cycle, ditto for the new suspicion on Striker, and I don't want to attack Illwei again at this point without more evidence against her because wallpost battles are exhausting and when she turns out to actually be village I feel bad about it : P beyond that, we had nothing from C1, nothing has surfaced so far this cycle, and so... yeah. Liranil it is.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Quintessential

[Mat he/him]

9 hours ago, Archer said:

Just want to highlight that Stink was not my elim teammate. I suspect I’ll need to repeat that several times this round.

 

Lol. Yeah.

8 hours ago, Illwei said:

So mindmeld here, which means... *counts on fingers* you're an elim this time? :P.

It's clearly not a pattern :P.

8 hours ago, Illwei said:

Honestly I went through trying to figure out what made me feel off, but the more I read it the more the things that didn't make sense made sense and it was just me misunderstanding so ?? I think Striker's phrasing or tone just always feels off in some way? :P.

I think that's it for me, which I already mentioned.

8 hours ago, Illwei said:

I'd also like to look at people who aren't Archer and Striker this cycle, because it seems that a number of people have latched onto them for some reason, when I agree here actually that going after them makes less sense, because they have 50% less chance of being an Elim than the other people. They technically are two people who we know for sure will die, but that doesn't feel like a good reason tbh :P.

Agree here- I'd also be kinda surprised if the elim teams didn't just attack Archer and Striker again, so we could leave them alone for that reason :P. I don't love the reasoning of 'they're 50% less likely to be an elim' but take that with the grain of salt that I'm only a freshman and haven't got any advanced math probability things like that yet. I can do circle theorems, though, if you want...

1 hour ago, Quintessential said:

The elims) attacking Archer and Striker doesn't give us any additional info about the elim teams, because they already did it once.

This isn't actually true- potentially one of them could flip elim and then we'd know which team attacked who, which could be useful or could be useless.

1 hour ago, Quintessential said:

Liranil for the same reasons/tinfoil as last cycle (plus I agree with whoever pointed it out that she's playing a bit more conservatively than usual).

Liranil literally seems the same to me as every other game so I have no clue what you're talking about :P.

1 hour ago, Biplet said:

Bold of you to assume this makes me biased

*raises hand after considering your contribution to killing him in LG74* I don't!  

Edit:

Only editing to tag @Whysper who @TJ Shade forgot to tag in the OP and instead tagged Ventyl, which I just noticed, and it'd be a real shame if she missed the entire cycle  

Edited March 19, 2021 by Matrim's Dice

[Quintessential she/her]

2 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Agree here- I'd also be kinda surprised if the elim teams didn't just attack Archer and Striker again, so we could leave them alone for that reason :P. I don't love the reasoning of 'they're 50% less likely to be an elim' but take that with the grain of salt that I'm only a freshman and haven't got any advanced math probability things like that yet. I can do circle theorems, though, if you want...

Does nobody read my posts???

1 hour ago, Quintessential said:

*rubs eyes* okay first of all, would like to point out that because of the way probability works, Archer and Striker are not any less likely to be elims than they were before! Look up the Monty Hall Problem. This is the same thing, but with slightly different probabilities. 

[Mat he/him]

Just now, Quintessential said:

Does nobody read my posts???

Yeah I know. Was I expected to comment on that? :P.

[Biplet she/her]

Why does Striker die early every game? I'm new to playing but I'm not new to spectating. Seems like he dies early all the time, and it's almost always a misexe. Heck, he died D2 in LG74. What's the deal lol?

[Quintessential she/her]

6 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

Yeah I know. Was I expected to comment on that? :P.

Er... no... but like... : P somebody has already pointed out that there is no probability disadvantage to voting them off. It's not... a thing... we need... to keep discussing. do I need to write out a mathematical proof of it or something? I can do that if you want...

Edit: @Matrim's Dice my point is that you responded to Illwei by saying you didn't love that reasoning about them being less likely to be elims, but weren't sure whether you were right about that... but... like... I already said that reasoning was definitely wrong >> so... did you just not read that? or were you ignoring it or something?

Edited March 19, 2021 by Quintessential

[Mat he/him]

4 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

Er... no... but like... : P somebody has already pointed out that there is no probability disadvantage to voting them off. It's not... a thing... we need... to keep discussing. do I need to write out a mathematical proof of it or something? I can do that if you want...

At the time I was writing the part you quoted I hadn't read your post yet  I was reading/commenting on the thread chronologically. And no, I think I can do without a proof.  

[Quintessential she/her]

Just now, Matrim's Dice said:

At the time I was writing the part you quoted I hadn't read your post yet  I was reading/commenting on the thread chronologically. And no, I think I can do without a proof.  

Okay good it would have been a nightmare to write out XD 

anyway. Uh. Any idea what we should talk about now?

[StrikerEZ he/him]

Okay, I'm going to spoil this next bit because it ended up being longer than I thought. The tl;dr: the odds of us being an elim have changed from the initial standpoint at the start of the game.

Spoiler

So, I've actually read up on the Monty Hall thing, and the key thing with the probability working out the way that it does is that the host has to pick a goat door, no matter what. For those who haven't read up on the problem: basically, because of that, the odds are more likely that the door you don't initially pick becomes more likely to have the prize since you know the information about both of the other doors. What changes things around this time is the rules for our game, in that, if you are attacked, you cannot be on the team that attacked you. Me and Archer's initial probabilities for being elims were both individually 1/3 (if we're gonna simplify it, though the probabilities would be a bit different based on the size of the teams, and probably less than 1/3). Now that we've been attacked, we've eliminated the chances that we are on the team that attacked us. It's an entirely different game from the Monty Hall problem. There are literally only 2 options for each of us, and we can't both be on the same elim teams. The probability isn't exactly 50/50, considering that there's probably...only 6 or 8 total elims. So you'd get something like either a 35% (6 elims out of 17 players) or a 47% (8 elims out of 17 players) chance we're elims. And if one of us is an elim, that decreases the other's probability down to around...18% (3 elims out of 17 players) or 24% (4 elims out of 17 players), because they can't be on the same team and therefore have less chances to be an elim. The math isn't exactly right because I'm just doing some quick assumptions about some stuff, but this isn't exactly like the Monty Hall problem because us being attacked does change our probability of being an elim, since we have one whole team we can't be apart of. 

In other news, some comments about the actual game: 

2 hours ago, Biplet said:

Bold of you to assume this makes me biased

I know that it's not going to make you biased, considering you were involved in getting me exed last game.

18 minutes ago, Biplet said:

Why does Striker die early every game? I'm new to playing but I'm not new to spectating. Seems like he dies early all the time, and it's almost always a misexe. Heck, he died D2 in LG74. What's the deal lol?

I mean, I have no idea. It just keeps happening. I think it's just because I tend to be a more vocal player, don't think through everything I say super thoroughly before I post it, and often have some bad logic in my posts.

As for what we should talk about now, Quinn, I think that Archer is an elim. Like...I know I did that whole thing up with the probability stuff (which could be completely wrong ), but my read isn't based solely on probability or anything. I still think everything he did last cycle just was a bit odd, a bit too forced. And sure, he's come up with an explanation now that he's under fire, but I don't know if I buy it. And I don't like how Quinn backed off as soon as he gained a few more votes.

[Quintessential she/her]

2 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

Spoiler

So, I've actually read up on the Monty Hall thing, and the key thing with the probability working out the way that it does is that the host has to pick a goat door, no matter what. For those who haven't read up on the problem: basically, because of that, the odds are more likely that the door you don't initially pick becomes more likely to have the prize since you know the information about both of the other doors. What changes things around this time is the rules for our game, in that, if you are attacked, you cannot be on the team that attacked you. Me and Archer's initial probabilities for being elims were both individually 1/3 (if we're gonna simplify it, though the probabilities would be a bit different based on the size of the teams, and probably less than 1/3). Now that we've been attacked, we've eliminated the chances that we are on the team that attacked us. It's an entirely different game from the Monty Hall problem. There are literally only 2 options for each of us, and we can't both be on the same elim teams. The probability isn't exactly 50/50, considering that there's probably...only 6 or 8 total elims. So you'd get something like either a 35% (6 elims out of 17 players) or a 47% (8 elims out of 17 players) chance we're elims. And if one of us is an elim, that decreases the other's probability down to around...18% (3 elims out of 17 players) or 24% (4 elims out of 17 players), because they can't be on the same team and therefore have less chances to be an elim. The math isn't exactly right because I'm just doing some quick assumptions about some stuff, but this isn't exactly like the Monty Hall problem because us being attacked does change our probability of being an elim, since we have one whole team we can't be apart of. 

 

*rubs eyes* that's... not how that works. : P You say: "There are literally only 2 options for each of us, and we can't both be on the same elim teams." But... that's the whole point of the Monty Hall problem. Ruling out one of the three doors doesn't change any of the probabilities. Ruling out one of the three teams doesn't change any of the probabilities either.

Also, note that because we don't know which team attacked each of you, we haven't even opened a door, so to speak. We know you can't be on the same team, but originally you could have been, and that probability transfers. The Monty Hall problem is just an example of that larger phenomenon. : P

13 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

As for what we should talk about now, Quinn, I think that Archer is an elim. Like...I know I did that whole thing up with the probability stuff (which could be completely wrong ), but my read isn't based solely on probability or anything. I still think everything he did last cycle just was a bit odd, a bit too forced. And sure, he's come up with an explanation now that he's under fire, but I don't know if I buy it. And I don't like how Quinn backed off as soon as he gained a few more votes.

Oh my god I am backing off because I realized he's gonna die anyway! That was my whole point. The elim team that attacked him before now knows that he very well might be Mistborn, that he's not on their team, and that attacking him doesn't give us any more information about the team itself. They have every reason to kill him and no reason not to. I'm not gonna waste a cycle exeing him when the elims will probably attack him again this cycle if he's not in the lead for votes. Exeing him would just be doing their work for them.

[Archer he/him]

I think what’s throwing me off about Striker is that everyone keeps saying that they die early, which I sympathize with, but the more it’s repeated, the more it sounds like an appeal to our emotions from an elim.

To clarify what TUO meant, in my debut game, QF49: Chaos in Newcago, I was an eliminator. I got by basically by talking more than people expect a rookie to, while getting some solid cover in my teammates’ reads. Going into this game, my assumption was that the elims would target the most villagery people because if they make the correct reads, they will avoid exing fellow elims. As a thug, I wanted to absorb one of those, so I adopted a vote-changing, loud-talking strategy designed to make them uncomfortable. I still wanted to survive though, so one thing I thought about was if I act like I did in QF49, I might actually get over-looked for a few rounds as the elims meta-analyze their way out of voting for me. TUO wasn’t in that game, but they could have easily have read the thread at some point.

If you look at the QF, one of my elim tells is bad math, so I’m wary of trying to tackle a probability problem right now. But let’s try it anyway, so people can take a stab at correcting my inevitable mistakes. [Future Archer here: Striker posted some math, the take-away from which is ‘if one of us is an elim, that decreases the other's probability’ of being an elim’.]

If either of us had been lurcher protected, I think we would have said so and expressed confusion about it, because that’s less suspicious than being possibly mistborn. So let’s assume Striker and I are either Thugs or Mistborn. (I’m going to solve this as if I don’t know my own role.)

Using my distribution prediction from C1, I believe this role madness game has three mistborn and three protectors. I also think that the three-person elim teams have one protection role each, likely one has a lurcher and the other has a thug, just for variety. That leaves the village with only one Thug, but we have a 12:3:3 majority. The game has two Thugs in it total. (Note that these are all guesses.)

So we have V-Thug, V-Mistborn, E-Thug, E1-Mistborn, and E2-Mistborn. When the roles are randomly distributed, each player has a 1/18 chance of being a specific one of those roles, and a 5/18 chance of being any one of those roles.

Now that I write it out, knowing that I’m a village thug, either Striker is confirmed evil or Vin, or I’ve wrongly guessed the distribution. So let’s back up and assume the village has two thugs. That just means one less vote manip or something. Also, if I’m discounting lurcher protection, that means us being possibly Vin doesn’t make sense either, as we’ve both denied it.

That makes V1-Thug, V2-Thug, E-Thug, E1-Mistborn, E2-Mistborn. With Vin removed (and Stink, come to think of it), it’s 5/16 that one of us is among that set, 2/16 that we’re village, and 3/16 that we’re evil. So I think that if one of us were randomly selected from the pool, it is more likely that one of us would be an elim than not.

But wait! The elims can’t kill their own people. So because they’re selecting, we need to remove their own players from the pool. Let’s say Elim Team One has a thug and mistborn, while ET2 has only a mistborn. ET1 makes a random selection from the eligible pool, which is V1-Thug, V2-Thug, and E2-Mistborn. They had a 2/3 chance of picking a passively protected non-Vin villager. ET2 had 2/4 odds. But! The pools overlapped.

The only way I can think to calculate that is by pretending they took turns. ET1 makes a selection. They have 2/3 of hitting a villager. If they do, ET2 has a pool of one villager and two elims. So they are more likely to hit an elim.

Going just by that, knowing I am a villager, I think Striker is more likely to be an elim than not. But here’s where it falls apart. They didn’t pick from a tiny pool of people, they both independently picked from a large pool of people. I am unconfident enough in my ability to do math not to vote Striker on the basis of this without first having someone better versed in STEM check my calculations.

An unlikely event has occurred. There’s famous court cases of mothers whose children have died. The prosecution argues that one child dying could be a coincidence, but a second dying is so unlikely that it must be murder. The defence to that attack is that an unlikely event has already occurred: two children have died. Weighing which method is more likely is not the appropriate way to determine guilt. So that’s something to keep in mind.

I don’t know what the elims will do tonight. If they like my math, maybe they’ll hit me and Striker in hopes of getting a mistborn. I’m afraid they’ll pick three other people instead and we’ll be back to spending a cycle wondering if we should exe Striker or I. But since the elims might shoot other elims, I’m okay taking the chance that they won’t hit us. We’re not at exlo yet, so if we decide to go all in on exing me and Striker and we’re both villagers, I think we’d have enough time to recover afterwards. It’s not ideal, but it’s better than being out of ideas at exlo and exing me because I’m a question mark. I want to make the elims work harder to get their mis-exes. If we were under more pressure, I think I'd more heavily encourage a Striker kill, but given the dynamics of the game, I think Quinn might be right. They know we're not on their team, so better to NK us than to risk not killing anyone at all. 

[Mat he/him]

I'm of the opinion of letting the elim teams kill Archer and Striker and finding a new target today that isn't Liranil :P.

[Quintessential she/her]

Just now, Matrim's Dice said:

I'm of the opinion of letting the elim teams kill Archer and Striker and finding a new target today that isn't Liranil :P.

Who are you looking at right now?

(side-note: apparently no one believes the future engineering major who once took an entire class devoted to probability on how the math around this actually works. Great. Cool. Good to know. >>)

[danex he/him]

Pssst

@TJ Shade

can I snag a spec doc

Spoiler

I have so many reads I want to share but I can’t cause I’m not actually in this game agghhhhhh

 

[Mat he/him]

10 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

Who are you looking at right now?

Good question :P. Lemme reread stuff and get back to you, though I also have stuff irl today so it might be a bit longer than you'd probably like.

5 minutes ago, Dannex said:

Pssst

@TJ Shade

can I snag a spec doc

  Reveal hidden contents

I have so many reads I want to share but I can’t cause I’m not actually in this game agghhhhhh

 

I think you're just supposed to PM TJ but I guess this works too

[StrikerEZ he/him]

1 minute ago, Quintessential said:

Oh my god I am backing off because I realized he's gonna die anyway! That was my whole point. The elim team that attacked him before now knows that he very well might be Mistborn, that he's not on their team, and that attacking him doesn't give us any more information about the team itself. They have every reason to kill him and no reason not to. I'm not gonna waste a cycle exeing him when the elims will probably attack him again this cycle if he's not in the lead for votes. Exeing him would just be doing their work for them.

Alternatively: by killing him with the exe, we force whatever team attacked him to have to try and figure out who to kill. And in that scenario, even if Archer is village, the not-Archer's-team-elims (I know I just said he might be village, but roll with me here ) could hit one of the other elims for us. Plus, you're assuming that he's an elim already and we can just go ahead and wait for him to die. He could be an elim, and then we don't exe him and he survives and they kill a different player and we're right back where we started. I'd rather get info on Archer now, because he's been involved in the thread and it can tell us something about other players in the game, especially if he flips mistborn. Plus it forces one of the elim teams to scramble and figure out who they want to kill. 

7 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

Also, note that because we don't know which team attacked each of you, we haven't even opened a door, so to speak. We know you can't be on the same team, but originally you could have been, and that probability transfers. The Monty Hall problem is just an example of that larger phenomenon. : P

Okay, I can concede to this point and say that it's been too long since I took a stats class.

However, if one of us does flip elim, that does have to change the probability that the other player is an elim. Because they can't be on the same team as the player that died. I don't see how this specific scenario (one of us flipping elim) holds up exactly to what you're trying to say.

11 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I'm of the opinion of letting the elim teams kill Archer and Striker and finding a new target today that isn't Liranil :P.

 

Don't encourage them.

And like Quinn said, who are you even looking at for the exe? I really think I'm just gonna leave my vote on Archer this turn. I think getting info about him if he flips, plus forcing the elims to find someone else to kill, is far more beneficial to us than going for other people. I guess I'd understand if you used this logic to go for me instead, but I'd bring up the fact that Archer has been involved in a lot of stuff so far, and will probably give more info than my flip will.

[danex he/him]

2 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

I think you're just supposed to PM TJ but I guess this works too

Well, if I did that, then we wouldn’t be having this wonderfully illegal conversation, and this is much more entertaining. 

[Quintessential she/her]

1 minute ago, StrikerEZ said:

However, if one of us does flip elim, that does have to change the probability that the other player is an elim. Because they can't be on the same team as the player that died. I don't see how this specific scenario (one of us flipping elim) holds up exactly to what you're trying to say.

Probability and actuality are two different things. Assuming 3-elim teams, the probability that any given player is elim is 6/18, or 1/3, because that's what it was when the alignments were actually set. After that, regardless of what we learn about players and their relationships to each other, the probabilities are fixed. The fact that we now know Striker and Archer can't be on the same elim team doesn't mean they couldn't have been--that was a possibility at the start, when roles and alignments were actually distributed. Our knowledge of a situation doesn't change the situation itself. Our knowledge of the actuality doesn't change the probability. 

As an example, take a typical C1 in which two villagers die. Does the death of two villagers mean that the remaining players are less likely to be village? No, it doesn't, because alignments weren't assigned after the two villagers died, they were assigned before the two villagers died. They haven't changed since then. There was a 75% chance, more or less, of rolling village at the start, and nobody's alignment has changed since then, so no probabilities have changed. We just have more information on what actually happened.

Basically my point is twofold. On the one hand, you're thinking about the probability the wrong way. It is dependent on only the conditions when alignments were first set, not on what we learn later. Striker and Archer each have a 1/3 chance of having been assigned elim, still, regardless of what we know now about what actually happened.

On the other hand, probability just isn't that useful as a decision-making tool in this scenario, because we now have new information that makes it either obsolete or annoyingly complex to work with. 

Thank you for attending my TED talk

[StrikerEZ he/him]

11 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

On the other hand, probability just isn't that useful as a decision-making tool in this scenario, because we now have new information that makes it either obsolete or annoyingly complex to work with.

Okay, yeah, I guess we're just looking at this differently. So, in terms of what we know now, the actual probability from the get go hasn't changed, but the information we have and the inferences we can make based off of that information affects the likelihood of certain things happening. I can get behind that. Still think knowing that the actual probabilities haven't actually changed is a bit of a misdirection from the fact that we know we can't both be elims, and if one of us does flip elim, there are literally less options for them to be an elim, so therefore they are less likely to be one overall. 

Also, @Archer people bring up the fact that I die early because it's a valid concern. More often than not, I die early and it turns out I was village, for the same reasons that people exed or killed me in the last games. I'm not a huge fan of using meta arguments, but I'm just asking people to consider not killing me right off the bat, to at least give me a chance to say things in the context of this game, rather than everyone being distracted by whatever it is about me that sets people off at the start of a game.