Mid Range 50: The Northern Wind II

[Mat]

It also depends on whether the Internal Affairs people treat their action primarily as a protect, or as a roleblock.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Matrim's Dice

[Jondesu]

45 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

because it's equally nonsensical for either alignment to do it, meaning that it's NAI.

Nonsense.  Claiming village is and should be encouraged when needed (obviously not randomly, since that just makes you seem like you're making a point of it when it's not needed). It's never nonsensical to claim village.  It just can be at the wrong time.  There's never a good time to claim Elim except if you're already confident of winning and outing your alignment is not a problem (I did that my first ever game here, it was fun).

I find this whole discussion frustrating because people are basically saying because Gears does this regularly, they can write it off.  That wasn't the case when he started.  It isn't the case for other people.  Why are we treating Gears differently from other players?

[Mat]

2 minutes ago, Jondesu said:

I find this whole discussion frustrating because people are basically saying because Gears does this regularly, they can write it off.  That wasn't the case when he started.  It isn't the case for other people.  Why are we treating Gears differently from other players?

When Gears started, he got voted off D1. Over and over. And was village, every time. It's different from other players because he's the only one claiming elim- it is different from other players.  Really, it's less of a write-off and more of just pretending he hadn't said anything. Gears claiming elim means as much as Gears claiming nothing.

...Maybe that is what a write-off is, though. I dunno. What would you suggest, voting Gears off every time he claims? 

(Anyone have a vote count? I'm doing a bad job keeping track this game.)

[Jondesu]

3 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

What would you suggest, voting Gears off every time he claims? 

Unless someone higher up wants to step in, yeah, basically. Why not?

[Mat]

2 minutes ago, Jondesu said:

Unless someone higher up wants to step in, yeah, basically. Why not?

 

7 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

When Gears started, he got voted off D1. Over and over. And was village, every time.

Started claiming elim, I should add. He's shown through experience that voting him for claiming isn't a good enough reason. That's sorta what I meant when I said it's only gamethrowing if you don't ignore it.

Edited May 9, 2021 by Matrim's Dice

[Jondesu]

Just now, Matrim's Dice said:

 

Started claiming elim, I should add. He's shown through experience that voting him for claiming isn't a good enough reason. That's sorta what I meant when I said it's only gamethrowing if you don't ignore it.

We’re gonna have to agree to disagree I guess. If I’m solidly in the minority I’ll drop it, but it’s behavior l’ll never condone.

[Quintessential]

18 minutes ago, Jondesu said:

I find this whole discussion frustrating because people are basically saying because Gears does this regularly, they can write it off.  That wasn't the case when he started.  It isn't the case for other people.  Why are we treating Gears differently from other players?

On the contrary, I at least am not treating Gears any differently. I always ignore it when people claim elim, jokingly or apparently seriously.

Edit: Except, I should add, when they claim because they've been found out anyway--in which case, it's still ignoring because I would have assumed them to be elim whether they'd said anything or not.

Edit #2: @Matrim's Dice here's a VC:

Illwei (1): Szeth
Exp (1): Matrim
Tani (1): Gears
Gears (1): Jondesu
Jondesu (1): TJ

Edited May 9, 2021 by Quintessential

[Mat]

Oh yeah, I guess that's also a distinction :P. I'd never vote someone out for an unprompted blatant elim claim, whoever it is  But yeah, agree to disagree.

Thanks for the VC. Somehow it's 1-1-1-1-1 so that's fun :P.

[---]

23 minutes ago, Jondesu said:

Unless someone higher up wants to step in, yeah, basically. Why not?

I could argue here about I think this accomplishes nothing. People do this, yes. In the end it doesnt accomplish much. In most cases Gears will flip village and we get nothing our of it, and it specifically sets us back on the actual goal of finding elims to specifically waste a turn voting out Gears. 

I could also talk about my thoughts on how the forum here in general seems to have rules that arent clear/dont exist about gamethrowing. Modkills don't happen even in explicit gamethrowing cases, and without mod action and definitions on what is allowed and what isnt, the players are left to not play the actual game until they sort it out themselves, which I dont think is fair to the players.

Anyways, as i was writing the first bit I was going to say that the best course of action might be just ignoring it, but i cant say it is. Because the goal of it was this. Not this discussion, but to prevent people from knowing if it was a legitimate slip or if it was just a joke, and this started off as harmful to the village in every game gears claimed elim when a villager, because he knew that he would get voted off, and his end goal with claiming elim was just to hopefully make his elim games more succesful. 

I also want to point out that the way he claims needs to be noticed. Its not an outright claim, which is different because the player would normally notice, and/or make a conscious decision to claim. Gears phrases his in ways where they appear like elim slips, which is why people notice them in the first place,  and you dont see people legitimately suspecting me for jokingly "talking" about the elim doc. 

Despite this, its not something i want to waste my energy and vote on. Because i want to try and play the game, not do what should theoretically be the mod's job. 

TJ

Edited May 9, 2021 by Illwei

[Jondesu]

Well, no matter what, we can’t risk a 5-way tie certainly, today especially (until the tie vote no longer results in all being exed). I’ll switch my vote since y’all don’t think Gears’ stuff is AI, but the question is to whom?

I’m unconvinced honestly by just about every argument I’ve seen so far, although that’s not unexpected this early. There’s been little done that could prove anyone’s guilt or innocence except the role reveal. I don’t want to just throw a vote on someone random and just shift the tie either, though. Of the current vote recipients, I don’t like any of them, though, so I’m frustrated now. Anyone else want to switch votes now?

[---]

 

Anyways, 

@Azmine_king

No need for a huge epic post, just hows it going rn?

Edited May 9, 2021 by Illwei

[Jondesu]

We only have a couple hours left, ya’ll… rather than risk a tie, for the moment I guess I’ll move my vote from Gears to Exp. Not convinced, but better one innocent die possibly than 5 people, even if one of them is guilty. That’s not odds I like.

[Quintessential]

VC:

Illwei (1): Szeth
Exp (2): Matrim, Jondesu
Tani (1): Gears
Jondesu (1): TJ
TJ (1): Illwei
Archer (1): Quinn

@Jondesu we have 15.5 hours left, which is not "a couple" even if you consider that people in my timezone and thereabouts will be sleeping for some of them. I'm gonna throw a vote on Archer (@Archer) because I've noticed he's been uncharacteristically quiet this turn. If it comes down to it, I'll vote Exp to avoid a tie/near tie, but tbh I don't even remember what they did that was suspicious, which imo means it probably wasn't enough to actually warrant being voted off after C1 : P

[Jondesu]

2 minutes ago, Quintessential said:

VC:

Illwei (1): Szeth
Exp (2): Matrim, Jondesu
Tani (1): Gears
Jondesu (1): TJ
TJ (1): Illwei
Archer (1): Quinn

@Jondesu we have 15.5 hours left, which is not "a couple" even if you consider that people in my timezone and thereabouts will be sleeping for some of them. I'm gonna throw a vote on Archer (@Archer) because I've noticed he's been uncharacteristically quiet this turn. If it comes down to it, I'll vote Exp to avoid a tie/near tie, but tbh I don't even remember what they did that was suspicious, which imo means it probably wasn't enough to actually warrant being voted off after C1 : P

D’oh, I guess maybe I switched the times in the two games. I thought it ended tonight. Still, I might not be able to get back on in time, so I’m glad I changed. Also glad to hear there’s more time to settle on a good person rather than having to hurry as much as I thought.

[Biplet]

5 hours ago, Illwei said:

Quinn and Gears are both Elims

Would be some convoluted planning from them, and I don't see why an Investigator would target their teammate? Unless you're assuming Quinn is lying about her role. Which, fair, but the logic of it makes sense.

1 hour ago, Jondesu said:

rather than risk a tie, for the moment I guess I’ll move my vote from Gears to Exp.

Can you explain your suspicions of Exp? I'm with you on not risking a tie (imagine losing 5 players on C2... yikes), but the only reason I brought up Exp earlier is bc people were sus of them but avoided voting on them in C1, so I'm curious your reasoning.

[Szeth_Pancakes]

Alright, so for the first time today I have something to say. Firstly, I am sticking with Illwei for my vote. This is because there's a lot of evidence against Illwei, especially considering that we're only one and a half turns into the game. Here's a rundown:

 

1. Tone

This one's fairly simple. Illwei's tone feels very abrasive in this game, especially after Fourth/Sart and I caught on to some suspicious things they were doing earlier in C1. Since I'm new to SE, I haven't been able to pick up on very many indicators of how their tone usually is, but in LG76, where he was a Villager, it seemed quite a bit more pleasant than it does right now.

2. "Doctors aren't that important"

Quote

I haven't fully read the rules, but my first thought I'm gonna put out there for now, is that I don't think the Doctors are that important, and I think giving up your voice and vote for a cycle to revive someone isn't a good trade. I also think that going to the hospital at all isn't a very good trade for talking to the dead people either.

This feels so, so elim to me. Why? Because elims would have lots to gain from the Doctor not reviving people. This would give us (the Villagers) one more turn to get closer to the truth and vote out the elims. As for it "not being a good trade" for the Doctor, this is blatantly untrue. Unless you're completely selfish and don't want to sacrifice one turn of your own time to give everyone else an extra turn, this is most definitely a good trade. I believe they were saying this because they wanted to plant that seed in any and all Villager Doctors that they shouldn't sacrifice their turn for the greater good.

Quote

My thought is that, yes, they revive someone who might almost be confirmed good, but that just puts a target on both them and you. You go to the hospital and you might get NKd, is why thought. that basically gives you a) a cycle with one less vote, with less discussion, b.) a 1-1 trade for a doctor-almost confirmed good, and then that person most likely dies again.

sure, this can be maybe avoided by multiple people going, but that, again, means that we lose votes and discussion.

This post has a bit more reasoning in it, but it completely ignores the fact that time is the most valuable thing a vil can have (thinly veiled SA reference ). Someone going to the hospital and reviving one person, even if they're killed again the next turn, would be a complete nuisance to the elims. It would mean the villagers gaining a turn to figure out the elims, and the elims losing a turn and having to kill the same person again the next turn.

3. Tani's question

Quote

I think it doesn't matter to me personally. If the Elims have an engineer and they lose, then good for the Agent I guess. If I was an Elim I wouldn't very much care if I was declared the winner or not, because technically I would have won. Same way I feel about village. If we catch all the Elims I'll feel the same if it's declared an Agent win or a Village win.

This all seems okay to me (Contrary to Fourth/Sart's opinion, I don't think Illwei was dancing around the question at all) except for the last part. Remember that the Agent cannot win with the Villagers. We (the Villagers) need to stop the Agent from "improving" ship parts AND root out all the elims. In short, if the Agent wins, we lose. Illwei saying otherwise feels extremely contrary to what a Villager would act like. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what Illwei is acting like here. This struck me as extremely odd.

4. This post:

Quote

I'm going to throw a vote on Experience Right now. 

Noted: 

 - Don't like TUO's "this will probably come off later", because that gives him reason to remove if XP gets more pressure, and it also defeats the purpose in a way of voting someone to pressure them at all. 

 - I think tani's question is mostly meaningless- answer wise. The Elims have to kill all the villagers to live. So even if all the villagers know who the elims are, the elims then I guess either have to work out and kill the agent first, or work out other things. Idk. So villagers don't really chose a side there

 - I think the distro is 11-4-1, and 10-5-1 feels too little (EDIT: TOO MANY. TOO MANY ELIMS. NOT TOO LITTLE ELIMS.). The Elims have functionally won once they outnumber everyone else- the only thing left for them to do is to find the agent and kill them first before the rest of the village. So that's still 4 cycles to get down to 3-1-4 in a perfect Elim game. 

 - I think the arguments about the Neutral being a threat have no weight, as their kill would only be used in endgame, where maybe it's two villagers and them, or them and a villager vs. the elims, or Villagers with one Elim left. killing off earlier than that doesn't really help them as much Imo, and if we are winning then they don't have any incentive to kill off a trusted/important town role. 

 - If there's only one engineer in this game, I'd assume it would be an Elim. 

 - Again, I don't really have a problem with the Agent winning instead of the village. I'm not gonna actively try and help them ofc (if there even is a way to do that), but I'm not going to try and delay the game if we think they have all 5 parts upgraded or whatnot. 

 - Szeth and Tani both voted on themselves

 - Tani and TUO voted on Striker. 

 - Immediately more suspicious of all three because 

TUO didn't even stay on Exp like he said he wanted to
Tani and Szeth haven't made a significant vote (only on them, or on the GM)

At the start of this post, Illwei "throws a vote on" Experience. Then, they go on to specify some people they're suspicious of, none of them being Experience. They aren't being consistent, and that's automatically suspicious. Also, they call me and Tani out for not making a "significant vote" and TUO out for not being consistent about his vote. Both are things that they are currently guilty of.

Conclusion

Illwei is the most sussest. 

*ahem*

Apologies. Please do consider what I have said about Illwei carefully. Also, I would like to give @Illwei a chance to defend themselves. Often, when you are under suspicion, it is your defense that either gives you away or clears you of sus-ness suspiciousness. 

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Szeth_Pancakes

[Mat]

How bout I defend Illwei for her. Sounds fun. 

Note that I don't especially read her as village, just that I disagree with some of the points Szeth raised.

9 minutes ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

This feels so, so elim to me. Why? Because elims would have lots to gain from the Doctor not reviving people. This would give us (the Villagers) one more turn to get closer to the truth and vote out the elims. As for it "not being a good trade" for the Doctor, this is blatantly untrue. Unless you're completely selfish and don't want to sacrifice one turn of your own time to give everyone else an extra turn, this is most definitely a good trade. I believe they were saying this because they wanted to plant that seed in any and all Villager Doctors that they shouldn't sacrifice their turn for the greater good.

See, the thing is here is like- yeah, the elims want to kill the village doctors, but what elim would be that blatant about it? Sort of a meta argument I guess but I don't really see it.

9 minutes ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

This post has a bit more reasoning in it, but it completely ignores the fact that time is the most valuable thing a vil can have (thinly veiled SA reference ). Someone going to the hospital and reviving one person, even if they're killed again the next turn, would be a complete nuisance to the elims. It would mean the villagers gaining a turn to figure out the elims, and the elims losing a turn and having to kill the same person again the next turn.

Personally, I think that Engineers are more important. Biologists are also more important, probably Navigators too.

9 minutes ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

This all seems okay to me (Contrary to Fourth/Sart's opinion, I don't think Illwei was dancing around the question at all) except for the last part. Remember that the Agent cannot win with the Villagers. We (the Villagers) need to stop the Agent from "improving" ship parts AND root out all the elims. In short, if the Agent wins, we lose. Illwei saying otherwise feels extremely contrary to what a Villager would act like. In fact, I'm not entirely sure what Illwei is acting like here. This struck me as extremely odd.

Similar as before, like what elim would be this blatant? But it's not that cause it's not like Illwei is advocating for an Agent victory, or an elim victory, just that she'd treat an Agent victory where the village triggered it as a village victory. Which I can see and I don't see how it's AI.

9 minutes ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

At the start of this post, Illwei "throws a vote on" Experience. Then, they go on to specify some people they're suspicious of, none of them being Experience. They aren't being consistent, and that's automatically suspicious. Also, they call me and Tani out for not making a "significant vote" and TUO out for not being consistent about his vote. Both are things that they are currently guilty of.

Eh, I don't think it was a 'specification of people they're suspicious of', just things that were 'Noted', for better or for worse. It's unrelated and not necessarily a sus list. Though I do think it probably should have had some Exp in there. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Matrim's Dice

[Szeth_Pancakes]

@Matrim's Dice

Much of your defense seems to be about how blatant Illwei is being about some of their suspicious opinions. I think that this is a good point, as elims are generally more careful about what they say, but the fact that the opinions weren't presented in a very elim way doesn't invalidate the suspiciousness of the opinions in the first place. Plus, most of my arguments (other than point 2) concern not the elim-ness of Illwei, but the off-ness of Illwei. They aren't doing many things I would say are elim, but they are acting very strange.

Also, what is your read on Illwei?

Edited May 10, 2021 by Szeth_Pancakes

[Mat]

10 minutes ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

Much of your defense seems to be about how blatant Illwei is being about some of their suspicious opinions. I think that this is a good point, as elims are generally more careful about what they say, but the fact that the opinions weren't presented in a very elim way doesn't invalidate the suspiciousness of the opinions in the first place. Plus, most of my arguments (other than point 2) concern not the elim-ness of Illwei, but the off-ness of Illwei. They aren't doing many things I would say are elim, but they are acting very strange.

That's true, yeah. But offness != elimness just ask MR45 me, so I guess if you're voting them it's off of point 2 and the fact that yeah, there's not a lot to go off of anyone else  I still don't agree with point 2, but I understand it at least.

10 minutes ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

Also, what is your read on Illwei?

Good question. Uh, probably about standard, meaning an increasingly paranoid village read that increases in paranoia incrementally until she inevitably flips one way or the other. Yeah. That.

Edit: I guess I could say that my metaness argument makes my vil read a bit stronger though. And my paranoia a bit stronger too.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Matrim's Dice

[Szeth_Pancakes]

1 minute ago, Matrim's Dice said:

offness != elimness

This is true, but offness could also mean agent-ness, or something along those lines. Perhaps the right term isn't offness, but non-vil-ness, or something along those lines.

[Archer]

Howdy. I got a weekday job that starts tomorrow, so that may affect at what times and how often I post. 

17 hours ago, |TJ| said:

Why are y'all mentioning Tracker for Trapper?? xD Had me confused there for a while.

Oops. On the plus side, y'all know I'm not the tripper now (Or am I bluffing?)

2 hours ago, Illwei said:

[1] I could also talk about my thoughts on how the forum here in general seems to have rules that arent clear/dont exist about gamethrowing. Modkills don't happen even in explicit gamethrowing cases, and without mod action and definitions on what is allowed and what isnt, the players are left to not play the actual game until they sort it out themselves, which I dont think is fair to the players.

Anyways, as i was writing the first bit I was going to say that the best course of action might be just ignoring it, but i cant say it is. Because the goal of it was this. 

[2] Gears phrases his in ways where they appear like elim slips

1. If you're having problems in game, use your GM PM. I think the mods would rather be promptly informed of issues and respond to them as they come, rather than try to make rules that would be subject to people making workarounds that follow the letter but not the spirit of the law. 

2. To that note, Gears is generally careful with his word choice. He tries to keep his evil side in the realm of RP where it doesn't affect the game. Since he's relying heavily on an evil voice in this game, players must sort his meaningful statements from his prose if they want to get a read of his alignment. 

In this situation, I'll note that v!him doesn't have any special knowledge of Quinn's alignment, so his making a post that reveals her role isn't game throwing to me. 

1 hour ago, Quintessential said:

I'm gonna throw a vote on Archer (@Archer) because I've noticed he's been uncharacteristically quiet this turn. If it comes down to it, I'll vote Exp to avoid a tie/near tie, but tbh I don't even remember what they did that was suspicious, which imo means it probably wasn't enough to actually warrant being voted off after C1 : P

Hiii. Here, I'll say something helpful:

General reminder about the actions you can take:

-The one related to your role

-Visit the Crew’s Bunks and PM others in the room

-Visit the Crew’s Mess and post an anonymous message

-Go to the Aviar Holding Area and request a bird: PM creation, protection, and one that prevents tracking 

-Visit the hospital (doesn’t take an action, but unless you’re the doctor or trapper, it’s all you’ll be able to do)

[---]

@Szeth_Pancakes

I appreciate your effort, but your argument reeks so much of confirmation bias that theres not really much reason for me to argue :P. 

Ill respond to a few things i guess, lol.

1 hour ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

he

Heh

1 hour ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

It would mean the villagers gaining a turn to figure out the elims, and the elims losing a turn and having to kill the same person again the next turn.

Again, this depends so heavily on when it happens and to who it happens.

Personally, i think this all comes back to the concersation some people had a bit ago about to self-pres or not to self-pres. Most specifically, the argument where "If you think the other person up is village, then youre saying you are saying you consider yourself more important than them". This is basically what the doctor is doing in my opinon. They are giving up their ability to talk and vote for a cycle to most likely grant someone else the power to vote and talk in the next cycle. I dont think this is all that beneficial to the village, when so much can go wrong already with us having inactives.

56 minutes ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

but the fact that the opinions weren't presented in a very elim way doesn't invalidate the suspiciousness of the opinions in the first place

This is a confbiasy sentence, specifically. Just to point it out. How ideas are presented should be taken into account, imo, when looking at things, and saying they dont matter is just. Wrong. 

I appreciate the effort you put into your case though.

 6/10, no new points from last cycle, lacking a strong conclusion. :P.

32 minutes ago, Archer said:

In this situation, I'll note that v!him doesn't have any special knowledge of Quinn's alignment, so his making a post that reveals her role isn't game throwing to me. 

I wasnt under the impression this was the argument, so if it is i agree with archer, and even doing so as them being e/e wouldnt likely be gamethrowing. I was under the assumption that we were referencing his claiming elim and that whatnot.

[Biplet]

55 minutes ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

This feels so, so elim to me. Why? Because elims would have lots to gain from the Doctor not reviving people. This would give us (the Villagers) one more turn to get closer to the truth and vote out the elims. As for it "not being a good trade" for the Doctor, this is blatantly untrue.

Throwback to when Striker said something was unimportant in LG74 and people disagreed and he got misexed. That wasn't the only reason but this does remind me of that situation.

2 hours ago, Illwei said:

and his end goal with claiming elim was just to hopefully make his elim games more succesful. 

This worries me. If it was to make his elim games more successful, and he's doing it again, wouldn't that be a reason to find it suspicious? I know I've only played a few games so far, but I don't remember Gears claiming elim in previous games I played with him.

[Jondesu]

1 hour ago, Biplet said:

Would be some convoluted planning from them, and I don't see why an Investigator would target their teammate? Unless you're assuming Quinn is lying about her role. Which, fair, but the logic of it makes sense.

Can you explain your suspicions of Exp? I'm with you on not risking a tie (imagine losing 5 players on C2... yikes), but the only reason I brought up Exp earlier is bc people were sus of them but avoided voting on them in C1, so I'm curious your reasoning.

It’s not so much that I’m suspicious of Exp (more than anyone else, per se), but that I find the arguments against them the least non-compelling, if that’s a word. I like Szeth’s post about Illwei, but I find pegging people as Elims for faulty suggestions risky, as usually it’s a misread. And the others I didn’t see much substance to the votes overall.

[Szeth_Pancakes]

2 hours ago, Illwei said:

2 hours ago, Szeth_Pancakes said:

he

Heh

Oops sorry :/ For some reason my fingers want to type “he” when referring to you. I tried to fix it as much as possible, but apparently I missed one.

2 hours ago, Illwei said:

Again, this depends so heavily on when it happens and to who it happens.

Personally, i think this all comes back to the concersation some people had a bit ago about to self-pres or not to self-pres. Most specifically, the argument where "If you think the other person up is village, then youre saying you are saying you consider yourself more important than them". This is basically what the doctor is doing in my opinon. They are giving up their ability to talk and vote for a cycle to most likely grant someone else the power to vote and talk in the next cycle. I dont think this is all that beneficial to the village, when so much can go wrong already with us having inactives.

These are some good points, but I think you’re arguing against the wrong point. The Doctor is important not because they are giving someone else a chance to speak, but because they are buying the villagers time to figure out who the elims are. One person revived means one more turn that the villagers have to vote out the elims.

2 hours ago, Illwei said:

This is a confbiasy sentence, specifically. Just to point it out. How ideas are presented should be taken into account, imo, when looking at things, and saying they dont matter is just. Wrong. 

Again, arguing against the wrong point here. I’m not saying the way the opinion was presented doesn’t matter - it does weaken the strength of my argument, but it doesn’t invalidate it. What I’m saying is that regardless of how the opinion is presented, the suspiciousness of the opinion itself should be taken into account.

Also, I wanted to say that I’m only sussing Illwei here because there’s no better option. Currently, I don’t have an elim read on anybody else.