Onyx Flamingo Posted July 22, 2021 Posted July 22, 2021 (edited) Did they speak? Edit: I see what happened now. I'll vote Dingo for now. Their defensiveness seems odd and I don't see the actual reason for voting Rhino. Edited July 22, 2021 by Onyx Flamingo
Amber Vulture Posted July 22, 2021 Posted July 22, 2021 (edited) Happy Hot Take Thursday! I think Opal Lion is evil. (Penguin) -Last turn, they created a PM with me, them, Plum Rhino, and Ross. That means they were one of only a few people who failed to get a gem, which in this game, is statistically more likely to happen to the bad guys. -They claimed to have RNGed the PM group. When I called them on it, they specified that they did a modified RNG, allegedly by looking at the first three options presented to them, then rejecting any they had a bad gut reaction to. If they did that, I find it convenient that it resulted in the three highest posters being brought together. Even if it was random, I don’t understand why they would do it; they could have just selected three people they trusted to talk to. Pre-emptive explanations can be a baddie tell. -This is more tinfoily, but I guessed one of Rhino, Lion, or I would die to the night kill and we all survived. It could be because Lion thinks they can pocket us, or needed active people around for cover. (Or Rhino and Lion are teammates. I might pursue that off a Lion flip. Anyway.) -Lion appears to have tried to soft several different identities (Illwei’s emojis, TJ’s Scottish voice, Kas’ reaction photo), but has been defensive in the PM about being Kas. I’ve made it known that I think Mint Heron is the real Kas, as their writing style matches their writing in the last anonymous game. In reply, Lion has produced paragraphs of rebuttal filled with references Kas would make. It’s possible Kas would prefer I stop calling him a liar and decided to name drop his degree etc., but it feels more like someone who did their research and has been packing Kasisms into their speech. One public example of this is, “your expectation that my vote should have disappeared because Swan made a Monty Python joke like Wyrm did with me in MR1 is curious,” which feels forced and gleaned from research, not nostalgia. If they really were Kas, they were trying to sow this confusion earlier in the game and therefore wouldn’t care so much as to provide sentences full of Kas-like-speech to try to convince me. It’s a weird hill to die on. I know these are weak reasons to kill someone, so I’ve taken a look through their posts to look for supporting evidence: Quote I don't want to open the 'to lynch or not to lynch' can of worms. Interesting that they use the term ‘lynch’. Quote I assume that Vulture Not Valerian has deduced that a poke vote without a threat of imminent death is toothless and has elected to stab their beak into it by forcing Weasel into the lead. Regardless of Heron's reasoning, they did tie Tuatara with Weasel. Whatever the specific tie mechanics of the game are, this should be noted. I am generally in agreement with those who think there is something off about Tuatara's reasoning but I see nothing wrong with a tie at this point in the cycle. In the interests of presenting the intrepid with more options, I will move off Rhino and on to my old friend Swan. The first point is dead on. But mentioning the tie creation as noteworthy, then saying it’s too early to be important seems off. And the vote on Swan helps what ultimately became the successful mis-kill. Quote Mavset-im's bodysnatch boils down to a conversion mechanic with three tells we can use: it turns the player into a vanilla, it renders them unable to speak in PMs, and it will likely cause a change in speech or activity patterns….Anyway I feel like a lot of the "don't roleclaim" or "do roleclaim" discussion is pointless this early on. Both elims and vil have sensible reasons to not want to roleclaim out the gate. But my experience has always been that talk is one thing and what players do is another. Realistically I expect a decent amount of claims to happen by midgame and believe the point is to think about how this can be leveraged to serve vil because the elims sure will do their damnedest to use it against us. The first part shows they’re well versed in the evil roles, although the good guys should be trying to achieve that. The second part shuts down conversation, which is an odd move for Day One. Quote Interesting guess from Heron which I shall neither confirm nor deny though I must admit to being a little wroth at Heron of all players trying to guess me, considering what they're doing and the history of that anon account. This comment gives me pause. But I think there's enough Too Kasy To Be Kas stuff elsewhere to outweigh it. Quote I'm divided on Tuatara. My general view at the point in time I stacked another vote on Swan was that I disagreed with Rhino on their being too evil to actually be evil but I have always believed that some level of such a play bottoms out in a IKYK to which the only appropriate response at this juncture is a LAFO. That being said, I am not comfortable with how the train has stabilised at this point in time. If I'm on nearer to rollover, I'll rethink my life and my choices again. Not committing to your votes is a baddie move. Quote If you're not a fan of stab votes, it's unsurprising you find my stab vote weird. Your response here also suggests you don't have a firm grasp of the distinction between stab votes and poke votes…Probably no reason to fight this much as there's really no call for much of a response, but I like meta discussion on playstyle and strategy, and I admit I don't understand why it's mysterious that someone who avowedly hates 'stab votes' finds one weird. Misinterpret the accusation as a difference in playstyles. Flip the tables to attack the accuser. Play it all off as inconsequential anyway. Smooth. Quote Atticus ran… Doesn’t Kas usually right justify his RP when he does it like that? Probably not important. Quote My view of Tuatara hasn't shifted all that much but I'll look at the Day thread again when I have some time. Going full confirmation bias here, I’m pretty sure Tuatara is innocent, so staying on them could be an evil move. In conclusion, Opal Lion has been acting strangely. Mind games are part of the fun, so I'd rather not force them to prove their identity. I think it's an intentional distraction anyway; they'd rather discuss whether or not they're Kas than whether or not they're evil. I'd prefer to focus on whether or not you guys think there is enough here to justify killing them. I do. **** Edit: @Amethyst Scorpion if poke votes aren't meant to start trains, why not just tag them in a post to encourage participation? It is functionally the same and less misleading to the rest of us. Edited July 22, 2021 by Amber Vulture
Magenta Albatross Posted July 22, 2021 Posted July 22, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Plum Rhinoceros said: Standard low-info kill, can't say I'm surprised. Yeah, it's not unusual for elims to go after the quieter ones early in the game both for the low-info factor and also to not kill in-thread discussion by NKing the talkative ones. Quoted below was the only ever post made by our late friend Croc. Quote Rieta walked, step by step. Step step step step step. Thinking was so very hard. Dullform made thinking so hard. Harder than she had thought. She hummed to Amusement softly. Thinking, harder than I thought. The rhythm soon trailed off. Hard to keep thinking things. Hard to hear the rhythms. Dullform made everything more difficult. Someone else started humming, then. She was humming to... Peace. Rieta joined right in, satisfied. Peace was a good song. Peace was also a reminder. It helped them to remember. To remember what they wanted. Why they'd chosen to leave. ————— Hurrah for five word sentences! They are perfect for this. Speaking of the quieter ones, @Azure Mouse also only made a single post in the past cycle. I, too, prefer not to kill off in-thread contributors this early on without sufficient reason. Quote Salutations. I wish to inform you all that I will be winning this game. One way or another. On 21/07/2021 at 7:28 AM, Plum Rhinoceros said: because there probably are some villagers out there who would turn given the chance. *raises hand* Present. Assuming the Elims are winning at that point of course. Seeing as how I'm still village for the moment, Cream is the most suspicious to me. That analysis was just completely full of bad advice. Almost seems TWTBAW, but its enough to provoke a D1 vote from me. I had many questions about the ruleset that were going to make this post much longer, but they've all been asked and answered already, so thats it for me. (bolded mine) The bolded bits just scream elim to me. This post is from D1 and I responded to it then too, but I'd only jokingly said that I'd exe Azure for considering betraying the village. Re-reading it, though, this whole post just seems like Azure stating and re-stating and again re-enforcing that they are in fact a villager, and it reads kinda overdone to me. Like see how the second bolded bit makes them sound so very concerned about solving the game? Is it just me? Azure, at least for now. 57 minutes ago, Onyx Flamingo said: Did they speak? Haha yeah, only a naive mistake it seems. N1 thread. EDIT: BIG ninja by Amber 22 minutes ago, Amber Vulture said: -Last turn, they created a PM with me, them, Plum Rhino, and Ross. That means they were one of only a few people who failed to get a gem, which in this game, is statistically more likely to happen to the bad guys. -They claimed to have RNGed the PM group. When I called them on it, they specified that they did a modified RNG, allegedly by looking at the first three options presented to them, then rejecting any they had a bad gut reaction to. If they did that, I find it convenient that it resulted in the three highest posters being brought together. Even if it was random, I don’t understand why they would do it; they could have just selected three people they trusted to talk to. Pre-emptive explanations can be a baddie tell. -This is more tinfoily, but I guessed one of Rhino, Lion, or I would die to the night kill and we all survived. It could be because Lion thinks they can pocket us, or needed active people around for cover. (Or Rhino and Lion are teammates. I might pursue that off a Lion flip. Anyway.) -Lion appears to have tried to soft several different identities (Illwei’s emojis, TJ’s Scottish voice, Kas’ reaction photo), but has been defensive in the PM about being Kas. I’ve made it known that I think Mint Heron is the real Kas, as their writing style matches their writing in the last anonymous game. In reply, Lion has produced paragraphs of rebuttal filled with references Kas would make. It’s possible Kas would prefer I stop calling him a liar and decided to name drop his degree etc., but it feels more like someone who did their research and has been packing Kasisms into their speech. One public example of this is, “your expectation that my vote should have disappeared because Swan made a Monty Python joke like Wyrm did with me in MR1 is curious,” which feels forced and gleaned from research, not nostalgia. If they really were Kas, they were trying to sow this confusion earlier in the game and therefore wouldn’t care so much as to provide sentences full of Kas-like-speech to try to convince me. It’s a weird hill to die on. 1. I'm not sure how smart revealing Lion's action claim was. We really dont wanna be giving the elims more info than we need to... 2. I'm gonna go out on a limb and slightly defend Lion here (please dont come after me if they flip elim haha rip) - But Lion has already reiterated that on D1 they didnt have any reads and all that stuff. And it makes sense, no? Why would anybody have like a solid trust group on D1 unless theyre an elim and know everyones alignment? 3. I really dont think the elims wouldve gone after any of the people you've listed there, precisely because of how active yall are in the thread. NKing one of you would give the village a fair amount of info. 4. Interesting observations, but I fail to see how Lion's identity's got anything to do with their alignment? Anyway so so sorry for double posting but I dont know how to quote stuff in the edit post box on mobile Edited July 22, 2021 by Magenta Albatross
Onyx Flamingo Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 17 minutes ago, Amber Vulture said: Lion appears to have tried to soft several different identities I'm not a fan of basing exe choices on meta reasoning of the possible player. Lots of people in anon games would intentionally shift how they speak to intentionally throw people off their real identity. Part of the fun of anon games is not having people judge you for who you are as a player, which is especially the case for older players with reputations. 20 minutes ago, Amber Vulture said: Interesting that they use the term ‘lynch’. I read this as an older player who hasn't been around a ton since the change in SE meta.
Magenta Albatross Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 (edited) Oh my god my two posts somehow got merged together is this magic Edited July 23, 2021 by Magenta Albatross
Amber Vulture Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 24 minutes ago, Magenta Albatross said: elim to me. This post is from D1 and I responded to it then too, but I'd only jokingly said that I'd exe Azure for considering betraying the village. Re-reading it, though, this whole post just seems like Azure stating and re-stating and again re-enforcing that they are in fact a villager, and it reads kinda overdone to me. Like see how the second bolded bit makes them sound so very concerned about solving the game? Is it just me? 1. I'm not sure how smart revealing Lion's action claim was. We really dont wanna be giving the elims more info than we need to... 2. I'm gonna go out on a limb and slightly defend Lion here (please dont come after me if they flip elim haha rip) - But Lion has already reiterated that on D1 they didnt have any reads and all that stuff. And it makes sense, no? Why would anybody have like a solid trust group on D1 unless theyre an elim and know everyones alignment? 3. I really dont think the elims wouldve gone after any of the people you've listed there, precisely because of how active yall are in the thread. NKing one of you would give the village a fair amount of info. 4. Interesting observations, but I fail to see how Lion's identity's got anything to do with their alignment? Anyway so so sorry for double posting but I dont know how to quote stuff in the edit post box on mobile I too would like to hear more from Azure Mouse, but see no point in dwelling on them until we hear more from them. @Azure Mouse why are you like this? 1. I think it was an important part of my explanation. 2. Not being able to develop reasonable reads is an evil tell. Trusting too many people makes it awkward when you eventually need to kill them. 3. I have six people on my radar. Surely not all of them are evil, so killing me. Actually I'm not going to explain why killing me is a good idea. 4. Some bad guys get defensive about everything when they are evil. I think this is a case of that. 4 minutes ago, Onyx Flamingo said: ...Part of the fun of anon games is not having people judge you for who you are as a player, which is especially the case for older players with reputations. I read this as an older player who hasn't been around a ton since the change in SE meta. Precisely! Which is why I found it odd that they were so committed to claiming Kas, instead of being ambivalent. I then went and found other stuff I saw as evil, which is what I am more interested in discussing. 1 minute ago, Magenta Albatross said: Oh my god my two posts somehow got merged together is this magic Araris is working overtime today. We should double his pay
Ivory Dragonfly Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 7 hours ago, Plum Rhinoceros said: That means that 10 gems from the village stash are missing, which is... lower than I would have guessed. Not sure what to make of that. 17 people who are still alive had the opportunity to go for gems, so 7 people didn't submit an order, failed, or took an elim gem. Mavset-Im probably goes for a village gem just for deprivation purposes.Everyone on the player list showed up so I'd guess there was significant over-requestation for Scholarform and Warform. Do think it's a little odd to mention kills, but it's also on par with noting that 10 gems were taken or that Scholarform/Warform were popular choices. 35 minutes ago, Amber Vulture said: -Last turn, they created a PM with me, them, Plum Rhino, and Ross. That means they were one of only a few people who failed to get a gem, which in this game, is statistically more likely to happen to the bad guys. -This is more tinfoily, but I guessed one of Rhino, Lion, or I would die to the night kill and we all survived. It could be because Lion thinks they can pocket us, or needed active people around for cover. (Or Rhino and Lion are teammates. I might pursue that off a Lion flip. Anyway.) -Lion appears to have tried to soft several different identities (Illwei’s emojis, TJ’s Scottish voice, Kas’ reaction photo), but has been defensive in the PM about being Kas. I’ve made it known that I think Mint Heron is the real Kas, as their writing style matches their writing in the last anonymous game. In reply, Lion has produced paragraphs of rebuttal filled with references Kas would make. It’s possible Kas would prefer I stop calling him a liar and decided to name drop his degree etc., but it feels more like someone who did their research and has been packing Kasisms into their speech. One public example of this is, “your expectation that my vote should have disappeared because Swan made a Monty Python joke like Wyrm did with me in MR1 is curious,” which feels forced and gleaned from research, not nostalgia. If they really were Kas, they were trying to sow this confusion earlier in the game and therefore wouldn’t care so much as to provide sentences full of Kas-like-speech to try to convince me. It’s a weird hill to die on. The first point is dead on. But mentioning the tie creation as noteworthy, then saying it’s too early to be important seems off. And the vote on Swan helps what ultimately became the successful mis-kill. 7 people failed to get a village gem vs. 10 living players who succeeded. And presumably if Lion got a regal gem they would have used it. So options are Mavset-Im or went for Scholarform/Warform and failed. I'd guess 5 or so people out of 7 are in the latter category, which would mean half the people who who went for those gems succeeded and the other half failed. Unfortunately, we don't know how much that RNG skews village, but certainly more likely to be evil. A lot of elim teams don't like to kill high posters N1 unless they're really in trouble. Or if they find a good role, like killing Kas N1 in LG 78 for being Beedle. The point of anon games is not to base your reads on a player's history. You're also not really supposed to claim an actual identity, or at least not be able to prove who you are. Ties don't lead to a failure to kill anyone unless the vote is tied at the end of the cycle, so it's fine to tie the vote before that. Otherwise, the first person to have a vote stick on them would die every time. 9 minutes ago, Magenta Albatross said: Oh my god my two posts somehow got merged together is this magic Any moderator can merge two posts together and then make the combined post say whatever they want without it showing up as being edited.
Steeldancer he/him Posted July 23, 2021 Author Posted July 23, 2021 A bunch of people have been asking me this, so here's an official clarification: gems are consumed when putting on a form. I thought that was implicit in the rules, but here's the clarification for those who didn't realize that.
Plum Rhinoceros Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: Happy Hot Take Thursday! I think Opal Lion is evil. (Penguin) -Last turn, they created a PM with me, them, Plum Rhino, and Ross. That means they were one of only a few people who failed to get a gem, which in this game, is statistically more likely to happen to the bad guys. -They claimed to have RNGed the PM group. When I called them on it, they specified that they did a modified RNG, allegedly by looking at the first three options presented to them, then rejecting any they had a bad gut reaction to. If they did that, I find it convenient that it resulted in the three highest posters being brought together. Even if it was random, I don’t understand why they would do it; they could have just selected three people they trusted to talk to. Pre-emptive explanations can be a baddie tell. -This is more tinfoily, but I guessed one of Rhino, Lion, or I would die to the night kill and we all survived. It could be because Lion thinks they can pocket us, or needed active people around for cover. (Or Rhino and Lion are teammates. I might pursue that off a Lion flip. Anyway.) -Lion appears to have tried to soft several different identities (Illwei’s emojis, TJ’s Scottish voice, Kas’ reaction photo), but has been defensive in the PM about being Kas. I’ve made it known that I think Mint Heron is the real Kas, as their writing style matches their writing in the last anonymous game. In reply, Lion has produced paragraphs of rebuttal filled with references Kas would make. It’s possible Kas would prefer I stop calling him a liar and decided to name drop his degree etc., but it feels more like someone who did their research and has been packing Kasisms into their speech. One public example of this is, “your expectation that my vote should have disappeared because Swan made a Monty Python joke like Wyrm did with me in MR1 is curious,” which feels forced and gleaned from research, not nostalgia. If they really were Kas, they were trying to sow this confusion earlier in the game and therefore wouldn’t care so much as to provide sentences full of Kas-like-speech to try to convince me. It’s a weird hill to die on. -I know these are weak reasons to kill someone, so I’ve taken a look through their posts to look for supporting evidence: -Not committing to your votes is a baddie move. -Edit: @Amethyst Scorpion if poke votes aren't meant to start trains, why not just tag them in a post to encourage participation? It is functionally the same and less misleading to the rest of us. -If when you say 'one of only a few who didn't get a gem' you mean 'one of the half of the player list who didn't get a gem' then you're closer to the mark. -Sure, pre-emptive conclusions can be an elim tell, but you're assuming they're lying about RNGing the group, to which I say, why is that so hard to believe? What would Lion gain from lying about that, what's wrong with just saying he picked us for being high posters if that's what he did? -Or just because a low info kill makes sense for N1? There is no reason to add one of the top posters not dying to the list of why we should kill a top poster, especially D2. -It's an anonymous game. That's what you do. Switching playstyles is fun and jokingly imitating people is part of the game. This is entirely NAI. The fact that I think Lion actually is Kas is entirely beside the point I don't even see how Heron seems like Kas at all. -So you admit to going into your reread with known confirmation bias? Cause that's what this sounds like to me. 'The reasons I have aren't good enough, so lemme go find some more' isn't a great mindset :P. -Disagree. Personally. Paranoid villagers who have no idea who to vote and still want to can be very noncommittal. -I don't think it's functionally the same. Seeing your name in red is different from seeing your name behind the @ symbol. Poke votes aren't meant to start serious trains, and they never have been. I'm confused at this case because it isn't very strong and you're acting like it is. ~ Other miscellaneous thoughts: I legitimately think Albatross is talking different from D1/N1. Edit: But they replied in our PM this turn so they're not Mavset-im so this is a pointless sentence. Flamingo is village Dingo is... also probably village Albatross Dragonfly is probably village Edited July 23, 2021 by Plum Rhinoceros
Chartreuse Penguin Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 I'm so sorry I haven't been here for the past two days or so. I don't have any strong reads on anyone right now, so I'm not going to post a reads list because it would all be null, but I'll do a bit of backlogging and take a longer look then the quick skim I just did, and as soon as I can do that I'll post one.
Melon Dingo Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 5 hours ago, Onyx Flamingo said: Did they speak? Edit: I see what happened now. I'll vote Dingo for now. Their defensiveness seems odd and I don't see the actual reason for voting Rhino. …you’re right. I’m not entirely sure why either anymore. Rhino lol and here I was trying to be anonymous I’ll do a thread read-through tomorrow. See ya.
Mint Heron Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 (edited) [OOC: Or, as autocorrect so kindly suggested, OOF, which is much more fitting for the day I’ve been having. Has anyone else noticed that we are currently in a 6-way tie? All with just one vote on them, too. I was even planning on voting Vulture as I was reading through the thread. I’m not a fan of how aggressively they went after Lion for…really really minor things. 99% of which I find completely NAI at best, and some of that I even find village-leaning. In addition, it very much appears as if they are looking for reasons to vote for Lion rather than reading through things and naturally gaining a suspicion of Lion. I’m also not a fan of how hard they went at Lion for the disguising their identity thing, which is very much the point of anonymous games. Vulture just feels so unnecessarily aggressive and like they’re trying to frame a player. At the same time, as much as I want to vote for Vulture…can I really in good conscience create a 7-way tie? I didn’t realize until far too recently that ties do not kill anyone, so I don’t feel comfortable leaving things at a tie, when I perhaps would if ties killed randomly or all tied players. Of the players currently being voted on, I am mostly indifferent on Albatross and Mouse. I currently trust Lion and Rhino. I still distrust Scorpion because of their strange reaction to swing the Weasel train take off. I can understand their philosophy on poke votes, but I don’t think that excuses their reaction to the Weasel train. I also suspect Dingo, for just being very flitty and overly defensive, and also going after Rhino for just pointing out some information. And their tone in their posts feels strange to me. I think I’m going to vote for Scorpion because my suspicions of them feel more substantial and less based on gut. In addition, here is the VC: Scorpion (2): Lion, Heron Lion (1): Vulture Dingo (1): Flamingo Mouse (1): Albatross Albatross (1): Rhino Once again on mobile, sorry for the inconvenience.] EDIT: Didn’t see Dingo’s post pop up for some reason, editing the VC to reflect their vote removal. Edited July 23, 2021 by Mint Heron
Cream Tuatara Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 I'm not particularly sure who to vote for, I'm going to reread the d1 thread after posting this. For now, have some roleplay. "Sken?" Called Jimmith. He was fond of disappearing from time to time then reappearing scare him. He was a strange spren, normally, his kind stayed invisible, only appearing when necessary. But Sken often appeared on a whim. As was the case when Sken's now familiar Voidal shape appeared in front of Jimmoth, causing him to jump. "Yes?" Sken's voice was echoey and deep. "Why do the humans hunt us?" He seemed to consider it for a while. "Perhaps they wish they were like us, with carapace and infinite shape, but out of cruel jealousy, kill us instead." Jimmith nodded. "I have considered that, but have they no respect for our laws? We were first, but they hunt us, they break the laws of our house." "Most humans are not like you. They do not hold the same faith as you in the law." "Humans are strange." "Indeed." Sken disappeared while Jimmith stared off into the sun.
Opal Lion Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 6 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: -Last turn, they created a PM with me, them, Plum Rhino, and Ross. That means they were one of only a few people who failed to get a gem, which in this game, is statistically more likely to happen to the bad guys. Sure, I'll claim it to the thread now, then. I went for warform, didn't get it. @Charcoal Hyena This is part of the basis for why I find it believable that the write-up is correct about the rush for warform and scholarform. Moreover, I preferred a group PM despite the risks of getting an Elim because I think it's good to be able to say "As of this Turn they were still talking in PMs" and to just have a baseline against which to compare. The issue here, Vulture, is you are making a plausibility judgement when you don't even have two basic pieces of information. You don't know how many people went for warform and scholarform, only that 4 mateform and 1 artform gem vanished. There are nineteen players and it is entirely possible that all fourteen (well, thirteen minus Mavset-im) went for warform and scholarform. You don't know whether the Elims went all-in on those either, or tried to go for other gems or even their own. That's an assumption you're making. You also don't know the base rate at which Villagers and Elims get their gems - we know Elims get a reduced rate but not how significant this is. Ultimately, it's possible you're basing your entire argument here off a 5% difference in probability. That's a drop in the ocean. You simply have no information about that rate, and neither do I. This isn't a statistical argument, this is just you saying "I don't find it plausible." In other words, you're appealing to your individual sense of what is likely and what isn't and using it as one point to try to sell a lynch on. If our individual plausibility judgements were a good guide to actual statistical likelihood in the absence of further information about the probabilities in play, then people who buy lottery tickets thinking they'll win the lottery are correct in thinking they will actually win the lottery. 6 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: -They claimed to have RNGed the PM group. When I called them on it, they specified that they did a modified RNG, allegedly by looking at the first three options presented to them, then rejecting any they had a bad gut reaction to. If they did that, I find it convenient that it resulted in the three highest posters being brought together. Even if it was random, I don’t understand why they would do it; they could have just selected three people they trusted to talk to. Pre-emptive explanations can be a baddie tell. I've mentioned several times that I generally start with a weak default distrust/paranoid suspicion of most players. I fail to find it surprising that using Burnt's RNG exclusion method should get me more talkative players because those are the ones more likely - than those who have said nothing at all - to give me reason to override the paranoid bad feelings I have about them. Nice try. "I find it convenient" is also the language of plausibility coming out again - in other words, this is a plausibility judgement, or "I don't find this likely", which is down again to your personal biases and preconceptions, which do not an argument make. Pre-emptive explanations could be a tell, or it could just be me stating a fact I hardly find controversial - that on D1, without reasons to think anyone Village, I just shrugged and let RNGesus take the wheel and just ruled out anyone my gut hated. 7 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: -This is more tinfoily, but I guessed one of Rhino, Lion, or I would die to the night kill and we all survived. It could be because Lion thinks they can pocket us, or needed active people around for cover. (Or Rhino and Lion are teammates. I might pursue that off a Lion flip. Anyway.) This is based off the assumption the Elim team would favour a control kill. This used to be the dominant Evil meta back in the heydays when I played SE regularly. By now, we've seen Elim teams that go for low info kills rather than control kills. In fact, the argument that active players need cover is kind of weird, because it implicates every active player in the suspect pool, rather than just me. Claiming that it is inherently strange that the Elim team isn't playing how you expected them to isn't an argument when the meta has been different for a while now. I'm just going to come out and say it - Archer, just because your team picked a control kill in QF54 doesn't mean that most Elim teams necessarily play that way these days. The meta has moved on and you should too And since it is not an extraordinary move for an Elim team, it's not a fact that cries out for explanation and thus is not itself something that is a persuasive argument. 7 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: -Lion appears to have tried to soft several different identities (Illwei’s emojis, TJ’s Scottish voice, Kas’ reaction photo), but has been defensive in the PM about being Kas. I’ve made it known that I think Mint Heron is the real Kas, as their writing style matches their writing in the last anonymous game. In reply, Lion has produced paragraphs of rebuttal filled with references Kas would make. It’s possible Kas would prefer I stop calling him a liar and decided to name drop his degree etc., but it feels more like someone who did their research and has been packing Kasisms into their speech. One public example of this is, “your expectation that my vote should have disappeared because Swan made a Monty Python joke like Wyrm did with me in MR1 is curious,” which feels forced and gleaned from research, not nostalgia. If they really were Kas, they were trying to sow this confusion earlier in the game and therefore wouldn’t care so much as to provide sentences full of Kas-like-speech to try to convince me. It’s a weird hill to die on. Wait a minute, so let me get this straight. I'm defensive for getting pissed about someone aggressively telling me I'm lying about being me? Wow, someone stop the presses! Heron's writing style matching mine in the last AG is a really bad reason to think Heron me. You're looking at the fact they use RP style and that square bracket OOC marker, declaring them me, and calling it a day. That's really superficial reasoning considering: A. you've played less than five games with me, B. you somehow insist on using Azure Mouse as the barometer than say, my behaviour in LG73 or LG78, or even my much longer gameplay history which is just plain weird. My reasons don't seem inherently plausible to you because you strongly deny I'm Kas. But on the assumption I'm Kas, why wouldn't I be defensive? Being impersonated by Mint Heron of all players is bound to tick me off and make me mad enough to stop hiding my identity given that Mint Heron did exactly the same thing in AG4 and I'm still salty about it. Furthermore, considering you're Archer, the fact that I'm defensive in your eyes shouldn't be surprising. You've consistently tunneled on me in three of the four games I recall us playing together - AG7, where you tunneled on me for having 'too much information' and somehow working out you were Village and playing the same fecking PM game you did, LG78, where you tunneled on me for being 'ominous' when I was admittedly trolling the thread to try to survive C1 as Beedle, and now, this game. The only game in which you have not tunneled on me is LG73 and that's because I essentially sat out the first couple of cycles and refused to do anything, and then due to some votes on Elims, my Villager status had become uncontroversial. Given that history, I'm not really sure why it's so surprising I'd have that sort of strong ("Are we really doing this drek again?") reaction to it. I'm also just going to say this outright - I used to be a very aggressive player. (2014-2015, I think - I was basically no-prisoners.) I began to tone it down around LG15b for a position I called [MAXIFUN] which involved less aggression. Which might be why you take signs of aggression from me as being defensive. I don't play that aggressively anymore for many reasons including the fact it made games less fun for others but I will absolutely bite back if my temper flares, and you do have a very aggressive way of phrasing your thoughts, and you can clearly take aggression so I have no compunctions in punching back even when I probably shouldn't. Meta also took that as an Evil tell from me in MR4 - unfortunately for him, I was the confirmed Village role. Just as a reminder - I was ticked off enough in AG7 to decide you were Evil and to slap down a poison charge on you that would have killed you if I died. I was ticked off enough that I flatout told then-Dragonfly (Whimsy/Burnt) and then-Lion (Illwei/Prudence) that I didn't really care if you were Good or Evil, I was done with the game. You yourself claimed that I reacted so strongly to your deciding I was Evil on the basis of playing the PM game that it further reinforced your assumption I was Evil. This tells me two things: first, your tunnel is part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour when it comes to me, and second, that of all the players, if there's anyone who could piss me off enough to actually get aggressive, it's probably you, and that's not very surprising that things happened the way they did. For anyone who wants to know if the AG7 thing really happened - yeah, That Happened, and I talked to the then IM (Fifth) about it, who told me to bring it up in the thread. I was, as it turns out, also Village. 6 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: 4. Some bad guys get defensive about everything when they are evil. I think this is a case of that. Well, you're wrong. You have a history of attributing amateur mistakes to me, too. You should probably stop that. You made the same mistake in LG78 when you assumed I was enough of a fool to talk aggressively about PMs as a Postman. As it turned out, I was not in fact a Postman. I haven't made that mistake since the Elims worked out I was a Seeker in MR1 and for obvious reasons, I'm hardly going to make it again. 7 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: Interesting that they use the term ‘lynch’. This isn't AI. Moving on. 7 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: The first part shows they’re well versed in the evil roles, although the good guys should be trying to achieve that. The second part shuts down conversation, which is an odd move for Day One. I've always paid closer attention to the rules than I let on. I've usually been more blatant about it in the LG20 era with long lists of questions for the GM but I've since both chilled and asked in the PM instead and just don't mention it in thread. We've also had three pages of conversation about how much information to share by that point, and I judged that further exhortations to do x or y were moot. It was time we moved the hell on. And given Mavset-im is a conversion role and I actually hate conversion games (see: Alv taunting me about the Shadowblaze in LG73), it's unsurprising that I'd fixate on how to stop Mavset-im from wrecking Village trusts. 7 hours ago, Magenta Albatross said: 4. Interesting observations, but I fail to see how Lion's identity's got anything to do with their alignment? Yes and no. It doesn't but I think it explains both why Vulture continues to fixate on me (history, who he is), and why I behave the way I do. We are, ultimately, the sum of our experiences and conditioned by them. And it may not be very well known but players of that era will remember that Kas has a notorious temper. I don't usually blow up but when I do, I go hard. And then I stop playing SE games for eons after that because I feel bad about getting angry. RIP Bard. Oh wait, I did blow up in thread at Devo in LG68. Well, there you go. Temper. It's a character flaw I continue to struggle with. 7 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: Not committing to your votes is a baddie move. Failing to reconsider your views in light of new evidence is a fool's move, regardless of what team you're on. I'm also extremely paranoid and unlike you, I do know I have a tendency to wrongly sus players for not playing the game how I would, and I continuously strive to check myself if I think I am in danger of doing that. Weird play or play I, by my personal subjective yardsticks consider weird, is not necessarily Evil play. Play I consider Evil is not necessarily Evil play. I wrongly lynched Orlok in LG12 and then Creccio in LG15b off that, and I thought I'd learned my lesson right up to the point I slapped down a poison charge on you in AG7. Yeah, lesson not really learned I guess. 7 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: Precisely! Which is why I found it odd that they were so committed to claiming Kas, instead of being ambivalent. I then went and found other stuff I saw as evil, which is what I am more interested in discussing. I mean, if you really want me to come out and say it: half of it is because imitating other players is exhausting, the other half of it is because I do what I do because my playstyle is the way it is because of formative SE experiences. I'm hardly going to say "Oh this is an AN I'm not going to mention that this is my gameplay attitude" and I'm happy to explain why my attitude is the way it is, as I always have in games and in PMs. Of necessity, this will appeal to the experiences I've had. A significant chunk of it will come down to you aggressively telling me I wasn't and Mint Heron (of all the bloody players!) was, to which my response is essentially "K, let's see how far I can go and still have you deny it." 7 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: Misinterpret the accusation as a difference in playstyles. Flip the tables to attack the accuser. Play it all off as inconsequential anyway. Smooth. Projection, projection, projection. Or was that projection, gaslighting, and denial? If you'd like to reinterpret the accusation, be my guest. The accusation was that it was weird for a stab vote to move after I got a response to a joke. This is not what stab votes are designed to do and the entire accusation is based off what I would refer to in Kantian terms a category mistake. (P.S. Stop telling me that this is once again being too aggressive about being Kas - I have in fact actively pointed to the difference between deductive, inductive reasoning, and IBE and used standard argument forms in early aggressive Kas days, so you have no leg to stand on here, birdy. I've also actively talked about epistemology, about Bayesian conditionalisation, about degrees of confidence/degrees of belief/credences, so this really is par for the course.) 7 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: Doesn’t Kas usually right justify his RP when he does it like that? Probably not important. I right justify the title; other than that, 17S has only one justification setting. Also, this then takes away the basis for your entire Mint Heron claim considering that Mint Heron hasn't done this at any point. 7 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: Going full confirmation bias here I'll certainly say that! You've acknowledged these are all weak arguments, and this is either a Villager building an Azbantium grade tunnel or an Elim looking for a convenient target given the anti-Mavset tactics I've been employing. (By the way - of course those are performative. Awes did no less in LG6, a conversion game. The point isn't to prove ourselves Village, it's because we believe in playing to our current wincon, and this includes sabotaging any attempt to convert us. Alv also did the same in QF4 by arranging for a kill on himself when he expected conversion.) At this point, I'm simply going to refuse to engage with you further. I don't think it's productive, and I don't play SE games to get mad. I think being angry brings out the nasty, aggressive, no prisoners Kas from early SE days that I've gotten rid of for good reason, because it's unethical, and it makes me a person I don't like. I also play SE games to have fun, and to do my best to help my team while I'm at it. If this isn't fun, then I've broken retirement and put in time for no good reason. Scorpion. Lion When I flip Village, I don't care which of you does it, I want one of you to - for his next five posts - reply to Vulture/Archer with "He bloody told you so." I'll also aggressively shame-nun him after the player identities are revealed at the end of the game because I am, apparently, that petty.
Magenta Albatross Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 Thinking Amber's village, for now. I don't see why an elim would need to go that all out for a single vote and honestly I'd like to believe an elim would've made a more mediocre yet acceptable argument to the table. Thinking Lion's village for being transparent about their action last cycle. Granted, I've been screwed over using that reasoning before. Will I rely on it again anyway? Absolutely yes. Thinking Mouse should really respond to my accusations Thinking Dingo's votes are odd. But overall, leaning slightly village because of tone alone. Thinking Penguin's a little elim-like; just something about their posts. They've been moderately active, with a total of 7 posts. What sticks out is their insufficiently reasoned vote on Rhino, and more so their prompt retraction. They've also been weirdly neutral in a lot of their posts, like this one where they comment on action-claiming, in a super non-committal way. It's worth noting that Hyena also picked up on this last cycle in the first part of this post, and I pretty much agree with it. Before I went and ISO'd Penguin, all I could recall was their first post, which I remembered to be one of those generic rolesplanation posts. Those are kind of always a red flag to me, just because of their tendency to appear useful while being essentially objective takes. I would change my vote to Penguin, but I don't want to disrespect Mouse like that Cmon Mouse.
Amber Vulture Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 4 hours ago, Opal Lion said: Scorpion. Lion When I flip Village, I don't care which of you does it, I want one of you to - for his next five posts - reply to Vulture/Archer with "He bloody told you so." I'll also aggressively shame-nun him after the player identities are revealed at the end of the game because I am, apparently, that petty. Self voting is illogical. So you're either evil or you're genuinely annoyed. And after that post, I don't have the heart to push the former option because the risk of the latter is too great to be worth winning a game over. Congrats, you've convinced me you are who you say you are. I apologize for misinterpreting your statements. If you're evil, double congrats, you'll probably win the game now. I'll slap a vote on Lion Penguin, then I'm out of here.
Mint Heron Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 [OOC: @Opal Lion I am sorry if I hurt or offended you by how I’ve been playing. I’ve simply been trying to obfuscate who I am, not trying to mimic certain players. I am curious if when you were referring to Mint Heron if you meant previous users of this account, or if you genuinely suspect who I am. Also, any chance I could persuade you to vote for Vulture with me? (Scorpion) Self voting isn’t super productive.]
Plum Rhinoceros Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: genuinely annoyed You think? :P. Let's just... move on with this, I think, everyone cool with that? Changes to previous reads: Dingo- Went from Elim to Village to Slight Elim. Moved them to village because of how consistent they were with their sus of me, and I would have thought an elim would back down. But then they backed down. /shrug Vulture- Went from Village to Null Minus. I already mentioned how it's weird how they presented a weak case and acted like it was super good. And has now backed down, but I can't say I blame them either. Other Reads: Village: Dragonfly, Flamingo, Lion Nulls: Scorpion (+), Tuatara (+), Vulture (-) Elim: Albatross, Dingo, Heron (Gut with no base) Edited July 23, 2021 by Plum Rhinoceros
Opal Lion Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 2 hours ago, Amber Vulture said: Self voting is illogical. So you're either evil or you're genuinely annoyed. And after that post, I don't have the heart to push the former option because the risk of the latter is too great to be worth winning a game over. Congrats, you've convinced me you are who you say you are. I apologize for misinterpreting your statements. If you're evil, double congrats, you'll probably win the game now. To be fair, if I am who I have been implying I am (with the subtlety of a mating elephant), I have a history of self-voting, though that has been as a Villager out of necessity. I will say I am genuinely annoyed, and I apologise and regret it came out this way. I do not lie when I say I am aware I have a temper (LG68, AG7) and have been working on it. I thought I had a very good streak until this game happened. I can't blue text this next bit, as much as I feel it would help if I did so, because it is a meta comment rather than a comment on RL. I have a few lines I don't cross as an SE player. I don't play against my wincon. Arguably, giving up and just self-voting and going with the flow when the lynch comes for me is playing against wincon but I don't consider it significantly so. Sometimes, if getting rid of me is what it takes for the Village to focus and gives them data around the flip, so be it. I do not actively seek out conversion, and always act to sabotage any future converted self in conversion games - I consider this part of playing to my current wincon. A player mentioned a distinction between honest manipulation and emotional manipulation. I'm not really sure how to talk about that. Perhaps I'll phrase it this way. I'm not a victory at all costs guy either. I don't ever think it's ideal to explode or lose one's temper in the thread. This has happened in previous SE games and will likely continue to happen. I regret and continue to work on controlling my temper, but I've been far from the only player to have done so when my berserk button gets pushed. I think that is one issue on its own. I think that deliberately harnessing such outbursts to gambit others into pulling away is an unacceptable strategy. The community is only able to function insofar as we can trust the signals when other players are having fun and when they are genuinely pissed. Deception on this front is of necessity a scorched earth tactic as it undercuts this environment of trust. Players do not like being made fools of for basic human decency, kindness, and compassion, and reasonably so. The only foreseeable result is a drift towards requiring bluetext for such interactions - in other words, a default attitude of suspicion and a drift away from this basic decency. In short, making a tactic out of genuine emotional outbursts only cuts at the game and rots the community. It wins a personal or team victory at the cost of all. This is never a cost I am willing to accept, and any Elim teammate on any Evil team I am on attempting such a gambit will find themselves called out in short order, and dead to me. I don't think we should mess around with such things. This is another red line for me. I think it's acceptable to sew chaos or FUD as an Elim facing a lynch or pressure. (I will say that one vote was hardly a lynch at this point given Scorp was leading, so there is no reason for an Elim to draw this much attention by fighting a single vote.) I think it's acceptable to manipulate other players' trust and the rapport you build with them through game interactions. I do not think it is acceptable to utilise your friendships with other players or to abuse the basic decency of other players in order to score a win and to save yourself for the time being. Using your friendships is in fact against the rules, but I'm referring to a more subtle idea of use here - the sort where you know what your friend's buttons are, and how to push the exact ones that will get them to back off. I don't think that's ethically acceptable. You can't be certain I wasn't saying it as a tactic, as you point out, but nevertheless, these are my thoughts on what players should and should not do. It's only as good as my word, but this is not something I consider conscionable to ever do in an SE game. 20 minutes ago, Mint Heron said: [OOC: @Opal Lion I am sorry if I hurt or offended you by how I’ve been playing. I’ve simply been trying to obfuscate who I am, not trying to mimic certain players. I am curious if when you were referring to Mint Heron if you meant previous users of this account, or if you genuinely suspect who I am. Also, any chance I could persuade you to vote for Vulture with me? (Scorpion) Self voting isn’t super productive.] You're fine, don't worry about it. I was referring to a previous Mint Heron, rather than to you you, except for where Vulture zeroed in on you. The context of my annoyance when it came to Vulture zeroing in on you has always been because of that Mint Heron. You're just the unfortunate current occupant of the title I suppose. The thing is, I'm not actually convinced Vulture is Evil. If I'm right about who Vulture is, then Vulture has a tendency to tunnel on me. It does feed into my frustration with the situation, but it also means I don't especially find that indicative. Vulture is one of my current light Village reads - lighter than Dragonfly, and revisable, but still light Village. I feel as though trying to solicit a train on me with that degree of tunnel is a tough ask for an Elim, especially given he has prominently put himself as campaigning for my being Evil, and would thus immediately be jumped on at my flip. (And if you - general you - still think I'd flip Evil, then all the more this is no reason to think Vulture Evil! That was a rather aggressive and committed tunnel that has been going on for a bit now off-thread. It's a bit too much even for extreme distancing, in my view.) Vulture also had better options, like pressuring me over being one of the Eiwlil voters. The fact he didn't and fixated over the arguments he did instead just seems suboptimal when he could've made a vote-based argument and appeared more like a hardworking Villager even though I'd flip Village. That might've solicited him support from players like Scorp who have publicly said that they think at least one Swan voter is Elim. Basically, this reads more like a Villager tunnel to me because there are better ways for Evil Vulture to play this Turn, and to even just play suspicions of me in general. To Mavset-im: Having said all of that, I'd appreciate if you and your team just went for a clean kill if/when you go for me. I can't really control this obviously, but I don't need to spend time undoing the damage you do after all this discussion about meta and acceptable and unacceptable player behaviour. Go steal someone else's body. In the greatest of ironies, I'm going to drop a temporary vote on Albatross. Sorry, Ross. I'm a bit curious about the bit where you found Swan too chaotic.
Magenta Albatross Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 46 minutes ago, Opal Lion said: In the greatest of ironies, I'm going to drop a temporary vote on Albatross. Sorry, Ross. I'm a bit curious about the bit where you found Swan too chaotic. Look I'm gonna come clean Every game I've played with Swan, they've been evil. I didn't consider this when I helped exe them but it was definitely something subconsciously guiding my actions because while I know at the back of my mind that such chaos is to be expected from Swan, I've never been in a situation where there wasn't an elim behind that chaos (well, I guess now I have been. First time for everything eh?). And well, all that aside, it should be presumed that we don't know anybody's identities in this game. Thus, those unexplained votes and ignoring questions directed at them is bound to attract some suspicion one way or another. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Elims do that a lot of the time, especially newer players, because they tend to get flustered when faced with prodding questions and votes and such. Sorry again, Swan! But you can't entirely blame me
Opal Lion Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 (edited) Dullform. Atticus [OOC: Lion] didn't mind it. Not the way the others did. Hard to think. Hard to dream. Hard to hurt. He'd wanted warform. Maybe it was the dark dreams, dreams of death and killing. Dreams of a king with a powerful bow in his hands. Dreams of an assassin run through by a Shardblade. Atticus didn't feel safe. Maybe that was it. And now two of them were dead. One in the rush for gemstones. The other likely murdered. Unsafe. They'd fled from the ancestors, the Fused, the ones who told them what to do. What to think. But it seemed the enemy had followed them. Even here. How much longer could they keep running?LAtticus didn't know. But he didn't know how to do anything else. Couldn't keep the voidbringers at bay. It was difficult not to take this whole thing rather personally. Find them or die. Dullform made thinking hard. But the thought was simple. Find. Or die. There was no other alternative. He scrawled the letters on the cave walls. It was difficult, trying to work them out. Incising them one by one. Quote RGOAMPDMPXZKPMKWCMVFIROUNNRMTBQLFKVXEKEYMTEOQQRCSOAADZWAYYBYWOUMKEDHPCDKTDRQKDNFOWQVLEEILR The one they sometimes called the Vulture had asked. Last night, maybe. Atticus didn't know. Time blurred in his head sometimes. Between dreams. Between death and waking. He'd asked what happened if Atticus didn't know what the letters meant. Not anymore. "Then kill me," Atticus had said, and meant it. He hoped it wouldn't come to that. [OOC: Yeah, I've come out and said it.] Edited July 23, 2021 by Opal Lion punctuation
Opal Lion Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, Opal Lion said: When I flip Village, I don't care which of you does it, I want one of you to - for his next five posts - reply to Vulture/Archer with "He bloody told you so." I'll also aggressively shame-nun him after the player identities are revealed at the end of the game because I am, apparently, that petty. Double-posting because I don't really want to blend this into the RP and other posts, but I'd actually like people to not do that. This was said in deep anger and frustration, and while the circumstances explain my reaction, it doesn't excuse it. I don't want to be calling for targeted harrassment of another player, and I unreservedly apologise to @Amber Vulture for having done exactly that. Edited July 23, 2021 by Opal Lion tag
Magenta Albatross Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, Opal Lion said: Double-posting because I don't really want to blend this into the RP and other posts, but I'd actually like people to not do that. This was said in deep anger and frustration, and while the circumstances explain my reaction, it doesn't excuse it. I don't want to be calling for targeted harrassment of another player, and I unreservedly apologise to Vulture for having done exactly that. Absolutely. I don't think anybody was actually going to do that, but yeah you're right.
Araris Valerian he/him Posted July 23, 2021 Posted July 23, 2021 Hey, just a quick mod comment. If you are writing a post while frustrated and worried that it will come through in your post in a way you don't intend, I'm happy to read over stuff and give my 2 cents. Now back to our regularly scheduled murders! 2
Recommended Posts