Kasimir

Any chance you can cash that out more? Having a crisis of confidence in my ability to read Quokka Buddy since MR67.

What's the basis of your JNV read?

Overruled. I'm Spartakas

Nope. Faerie phrased it specifically as a poke:

Sis, he claimed Contact. That horse has left the barn Edited to add: Also I think it's worth asking when Raven made that extremely specific read - it felt like TMI territory. Theoretically even if you were minded to look, Informant (and Insider) should be the hardest to pick out. Archer's votes on Royal didn't count because we haven't fixed Tallybot but I have two reports due tomorrow and a conference on Friday so it's going to continue not to get fixed. I think Royal is probably acceptable but yeah. That and niel. I'll work something out for that eventually ig.

Counter-voting is an interesting move in a player of Royal's profile, especially given Royal seemed to partially struggle to form suspicions. Drake vote last game was the explicit result of lobbying, with arguably the same results for the Sart vote so it's hard to form a baseline. Usual caveats about the profile apply, but I'm fine with keeping Royal in PoE. Why Informant in particular? That's a very specific prediction as compared to just Village. What do you make of the thing Raven hasn't done? Hmm Ngl I'm glad Drake said Archer smells Evil for a hot second there I thought he was gonna say Archer smelled bad which was a bit too much TMI for me Hmm. I can get behind that but I was already V!reading Aman for other reasons, including his being the Contact.

Let us know who to go after next cycle, thanks! Raven/Archer/Royal thoughts?

I feel like this interaction is adorable but I've also been watching videos of little penguins for the last hour or so so this might influence my read of the situation.

I read this as 'hard to drink while driving' and almost had a caps explosion there ikr smhhhhhh

Yeah, it's not the hardness here that's catching my attention, more the overextension nature of it. But we'll see. I certainly also don't want to do the thing where I paraed you over Raven either.

It just kind of feels like it did when you were lobbying me about Hyena in the PM with Mat. It felt at points then like you were overcredencing or overpushing for it, but more subtly so since no lobbying here. But given Royal's play so far, I think I'm content to just watch and see how it goes. I don't feel strongly about it, but there's no harm in pointing out the thought crossed my mind. Edited to add: Like you kept insisting Hyena's "Man I read my own posts and thought I was E" was pretty Evil and at first I defended Hyena because I've had that experience too, cf. the Araris game I mentioned. There was just an intuitive sense you were overpushing because I felt it was relatable. I went with you in the end but the argument never really 'clicked,' for want of a better word, which was probably because I had other places where I V!read Hyena a little. I'm ambivalent enough about Royal because I don't have a baseline and their few engagements last game have led me to insert them in a particular type of profile that I'm not very good at reading, so I have no issues seeing how you and Royal play out. If you are the Informant and are brawling Stick rn in the doc imma laugh How the turns have tabled.

Beautiful. Spiderman meme on steroids >:D Akan datang. I will say the Royal read gave me some Hyena vibes.

Honestly no, especially if they don't engage with the argument. I can see why people might press X to doubt but they would be wrong which is the whole point of my clarifying it. I mean, that's true psychologically for me. I'll give you an example - in the case you voted me, exed me, and I found out you were just Elims trying to hardpush me, obviously I dgaf then because you just had vested interests which explains the bad reasons. What I'm saying here is: idgaf about how you want to do the entailment. In my head, it's very clear I get fed-up when it's a bad argument. Do I fight all bad arguments? No, because it pisses everyone off and because it takes more to trigger my wanting to be altruistic. You're entitled to feel differently or to just argue I'm deluded about my own psychology (certainly possible), but to me, it's still about the bad arguments. I believe that even having to frame the thought in the form of an argument is a first layer check, as is if anyone comes by and engages, as you are clearly doing. If you write the thought and go 'hang on that doesn't work', then clearly you aren't gonna converge. If no one can rebut it, rather than a specific them, then maybe it's not half bad after all. Recall that in this context, the specific 'them' is the person you are disagreeing with. Honestly that's kind of where I am, at least with regard to my process. It's functionally how journal publishing works these days - no one is ever going to convince Reviewer #2, lbr. Yes, but I can't think it out in my head, I need to see it written down (see what I've written earlier), and then the thread is as good a place as the GM PM. Probably better since I might get useful engagement from someone else. But we're back to whether I felt it was worth spending the energy specifically to get Neil to think I'm Village (no), which is a different evaluation from "am I ready to look at this problem" (why not.) My bar for the latter is a lot lower than for the former. You can argue they are interconnected, but to me they aren't, and even if the interlocuter is unlikely to get back, if I judge the problem itself is worth doing it for, then why not? And there's always the off-chance an interloper will add clarity. My motivation level for doing either is just fundamentally different at the baseline. Are you insane. Dude this is like 500% the point of contemporary analytic philosophy and I'm seriously disturbed you don't think this matters as much as I do I think this is significant and I also am really invested in it But I am concerned with the second point - the whole point of doing it is to facilitate clarity, and clarity facilitates truth-seeking because poorly-defined problems leads to poorly-defined understanding of the situation, i.e. false paths. I'd also add on a pragmatic level I think it's worth clarifying just to be polite. There's a certain level of how much good/bad faith to assume. In which case it's reasonable to go "I will do this much to assume good faith but if you ain't getting there, you ain't." You can argue it's some level of investment in what someone else thinks, but it's also a healthy degree of disinvestment because you are outcome-agnostic enough to not really want to avert the other outcome. Lio knows Honestly yes. It irks me more than anything when someone misrepresents and I think untraining the reflexive 'Evil!' read on it was the hardest thing to do. It's probably linked to the fact it also pisses me off very quickly IRL. Game-wise I'd argue again being read as Village comes naturally or not if you are solving, so I never see that as the thing I want to oay attention to. TJ could've put us in a doc or given us PMs. Clearly his fault I felt I had a decent Royal read later in the last game. But at the moment, not so much, potentially because I don't have a strong mental model of Royal yet. I'll buy that The issue with the Stick point is I'm not talking about post-volume. I'm just talking about the fact she aggressively offered about five different reads very early on in the last game (which was actively Village-helpful and TMI-informed) but didn't here. Or at least, I felt it took her longer to get around to it, and the fact that it happened after I said it makes me less willing to credit it. I just feel that's a clear behavioural difference that makes me wonder if her hesitance to hit the mark is lack of TMI. It could've still made her an Insider which is why I was careful about my phrasing.

Fair, but if you're pulling the important crem hypothesis, then you are basically more or less committed to a set of <Archer, Faerie????, Aeo> with little else - at this hour, or even marginally before that, there's little else that could conceivably drag Stick's attention this far off. Maybe bake Neil back in but given the three of us have been having an ongoing thing in the thread, I don't feel doc presence is as viable. Perhaps you can but I can't hold both an argument like this, and handle important doc crem at the same time. Stick's timezone being fairly unique does have certain advantages. Fair, I can see that. I'll remind myself to compare to the explanations later, assuming I hadn't already excluded them from the Insider set last game and so didn't ask. Edited to add: I guess what I'm saying is that if it's important doc crem that can't wait, it probably almost certainly entails E!Stick's docmates would have to be present. Stick would otherwise not feel so pressured to be present there. It's not impossible but I still don't favour that hypothesis due to who the set would be - but anyway I also think it's a moot point given she just said she was in class, and wouldn't have excluded her from being the Insider anyway

Veridical? Yeah it is, I just misspelled it as it's been a bunch of years since I had to use it in a paper. SIS SMH can u give me a bit more to work with pls Edited to add: I geddit if u don't wanna I'm just considering how I feel about Royal and drawing a lot of ???s due to the behavioural divergence here so IDK if you are seeing something I'm not.

Edited to add: Aaaaaand ruining the nice clean JNV post to say: Like yeah on some level I'm definitely a rationality snob. I like to think I got better about it over time compared to where I used to be when I started playing SE in that I bite back the impulse to think bad argument = wrong = Evil and so on. It's very much a thing that people will 'wrong formula right answer' a lot when it comes to finding Elims and the trick is knowing which is which. Being a good argument doesn't guarantee truth either. You can make pretty and elaborate arguments and still be wrong. But at core I still believe we try to get it right - V!read the Villagers, E!read the Elims, ML as rarely as possible, and just do our best. And at core I do believe having good arguments, testing them for holes, etc, is a generally (with asterisks given what I just said) good way to get there. Certainly some of this is meta because it was about disputes but it's the same thing to me - I like arguments because putting thoughts in arguments, making arguments is how you test them, whether to destruction or otherwise. I think that's still a good recipe for hopefully-true or at least epistemically decent beliefs if you can at least BS test them first. And that's just a long way of saying: "I think aloud in the thread a lot because TJ will swear at me if it goes into the GM PM."

Putting JNV thoughts elsewhere so people can skip the whole previous exchange with Drake more easily: Admitting straight-up it's gut but also a sense that E!JNV just tends to be more participatory than JNV, and I did feel that was a very perfunctory check-in post from JNV. Agreed it could be the hour, but...man, IDK. I was divided about it earlier, but I think if forced, I'd probably come down just a tad more on the E side. @JNV: Quokka Buddy - thoughts on Neil at this juncture?

this was anti-climactic but i understand That difference being? Also before I forget: JNV. Sure, but we're back to necessary and sufficient conditions. It's necessary that I find the argument a bad one - it doesn't have to be sufficient. You're making the sufficiency statement which I don't disagree with. All I hold is the necessity statement. Sometimes I think it's actually a good argument, in which case I shrug and acknowledge it - cf. Szeth and Araris, though Araris was Evil and therefore actually being insincere Yes and no I think - if you want to contend that the entailment also involves the claims/arguments made, in which case, sure, but I've also already specified I just really don't care about the outcome and don't care about getting exed, so saying this is really just doing a conceptual redefinition to the point it's not the concept I was picking out with my original statement to begin with. On ...It's about trying to arrive at a hopefully-veredical answer? I mean, the issue with this is that arguments are often more about logic than per se rhetoric. We can go back to the whole necessary/sufficient conditions issue again, sure, but if I just cared to persuade, I'd be leaning more into rhetoric than I was. There's also the aspect where clarifying your position in a dispute need not be aiming to persuade so much as to set the record clear. Honestly in this particular case, it was more to ease my conscience and also to be less aggressive about it - again, refer to my beliefs about doing the basic Village work. I just feel it's kind of harsh to slam the door at "No" especially when it became pretty apparent Neil was taking it as a total refusal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In your case, it was about clarifying my position rather than aiming to persuade anyone at all. I wasn't trying to convince him I'd fulfilled my duty - but clarifying that I had was, in my view, part of the contour of the disagreement that wasn't being gotten, cf. your coverage. I wasn't trying to convince Neil in particular I'd done it so much as to point out that again, it's one kind of situation if I came in, did nothing, and then asserted I didn't need to care to do any Village work, and another kind if I came in, did some basic thing, and then asserted I didn't care to do more. Again, positional clarification need not in itself aim to persuade. You could try to hairsplit to say positional clarification aims to persuade that the clarified position is the correct way to read the dispute, in which case, fair enough, but then my stakes are simply not wanting to be misrepresented. In part. I sometimes argue to clarify my own thoughts on the matter, and that affects a lot of how I approach the thread when Village as compared to when Evil, but also, again, positional clarification. I think that recognising doing your basic duty matters also matters enough that it's worth actually clarifying that part of the position. Minimally, I think this recognition should be important enough to be a basic norm, and so is worth addressing/establishing, because it's germane to what kind of dispute this is, and what, tacitly, should be an acceptable dispute (on the level of norms rather than reads) and what shouldn't. Edited to add: RIP sir

It does, doesn't it? But your performance from the last game, and as Informant, which IMO is like double the work since you have two headspaces to juggle, seems to me to be potentially indicative that you don't suffer the amount of lag/drop-off that Drake and Aman did, given all three of you were bickering in a...33-page doc. So let's bracket that as a tell when it comes to you. The other thing that stood out to me was that you were a lot faster to give reads last game, which was one reason I would've gone V!you over Drake, even had Drake chosen to push the point. I did wonder if they came too fast, but bracketed that as I figured given you, I could maybe see some read volume being reasonable. I'm considering the extent to which the doc influenced your willingness to do so - it's still a form of TMI, however imperfect. My current inclination is it probably did so. Would also like to know why Neil thinks you'd be all over Royal - I seem to remember you keep saying you despise purity reads.

Half the issue with the past game as comparison is I didn't explicitly E!read you, but I didn't V!read you either (these being strictly on the basis of play), and had a lingering theory due to a link analysis chart I did up that one of you or Faerie was Evil based on a sense that Alv might be the Contact and bluffing - that was why I explicitly asked you, and you caught that I had, framing my question on your thoughts on Alv in light of your saying Alv was not E/E with you. I thought you were trying to signal to the Elims. I don't feel there is a strong difference at this point except potentially you being less willing to stick the contact, for want of a better phrase. Edited to add: Tempted to conclude from Stick's increased reticence that she isn't in a doc this time... Though I kind of feel like E!Stick could just decide to be less helpful and jebiga it.

I don't think that's a disagreement with what I'm saying - I'm saying that saying I don't care about whether I get voted out doesn't mean I don't care about the argument. Illwei thought my arguing meant I cared about the vote - I didn't. I cared about the grounds for the vote because I thought it was bad. (And I disliked the fact it ignored I had, at that point, actually contributed to the game, albeit in a format of pure suffering, whereas others hadn't.) Whether or not I have a higher tendency to do that for votes that target me doesn't change the fact that my issue is with the reasons rather than the outcome. It just means that you can't assert I attack all bad arguments, just some - but that still boils down to taking exception to the argument rather than the outcome. That's kind of my point too, which I still feel you are missing, though maybe the thread will yell at us for carrying on with this. I feel that asking whether it's worth it doesn't abrogate the question of whether the player is putting in - at minimum - basic expected effort. (Even if this doesn't matter to you as a criterion, it matters to me, since I blew up at the Village last round for it, and this directly led to my opting out of playing seriously in LG95 after the cremshow that was LG94.) So my point isn't about who is trying hard enough - it's just that "I am asserting I have fulfilled the basic duty at present, therefore I can really just ask if it is worth trying to change that." I do think it is materially relevant to ask if you are or are not at least fulfilling the basic expected effort threshold - that's the entire point of the playstyle rule still requiring you to be prosocial. Edited to add: Putting it another way I suppose - it's one thing to do nothing productive in an entire game and then be belligerent when asked to be at least readable. It's another thing entirely to have done the basic but also to refuse to go above and beyond it. Minimally I'd argue the first case is much closer to being beyond the pale because it completely neglects the social element and sort of goes into "then why are you even signing up?" territory. JNV's post is sticking out to me and I'm not sure why. It's a lot more participatory/'I'm here' than V!JNV usually cares for, but at the same time, I often expect E!JNV to be more performative. Probably a wee bit wary I guess.

I feel I'm a bit salty from last game and incapable of being objective here, is the issue. I'm aware I get that way about some players at times and it can literally just be anything, e.g. MR67 (your first game) where I just sat on E!Wiz for most of the cycle until Aman talked me off near the end because I could not get over his vote on Archer, who I felt was objective V!readable. I believe I'll get there in time, or not, then it can be someone else's problem. @Stick. Where are you on Neil rn sis? In general, thoughts in my head I suppose (this isn't really a read but consider it a read substitute I suppose) -Genuine or opportunistic? -Like early go-getter and potential read reluctance (cf. Stick on Aeo though! -Insider and E different profiles) -Considering whether tunnelling or going for easy prey/park -Kind of feels genuine though? Rme? I think the main reason I'm thrown here is maybe the tell you have in mind isn't the one I have in mind. I'm notorious for a lack of WiM when E - I think TKN alluded to as much in MR67. I can fake it for the short term but the stamina isn't there, and it shows in terms of how much I can/don't get lured into solving. On a purely OOG (out of game) level, it's obviously something I'm trying to learn to mask but I haven't yet managed to do so. If I'm the Insider, then all bets are off, I think. I'm aware of the usual #selfmeta caveats, so just take it for whatever it is. But given it was backed up by someone else in one of my V games, probably at least somewhat valid.

I admit I'm probably still a bit salty over being somehow not obv V last game but I'll get over it eventually I also admit and here I'll be a bit sorry — for deliberately picking the obtuse and combative answer just to see what happened, especially if it really threw you. Well, what you make of it is up to you, it's not really my problem. I do stand by the Drake read for now and am still reconsidering the Archer impulse. I still don't really have a you read but I think that's fine with me for now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I did have some notion I wanted to see if I could get anything out of throwing you but nope, drawing a blank on this one. Edited to add: Something I found interesting. The claim came from Royal, not Raven.

I'm basically clarifying the actual grounds of the clash as you presented it as a two way street. I disagree with that characterisation. I also imagined Illwei Illweing again with regard to yOu sAiD yoU doN't CaRe AbOuT beInG voTeD sO WHy aRE yOu rEspoNDing BS argument from the start of AG10 so I further added in points to block that sidetrack since I then expected Neil to go there. I also expect him to go into the tone/defensiveness issue yet again and might be willing to place a bet on it It's a career hazard—half the point of a good philosophy paper is to pre-empt objections and dispatch them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edited to add: I suppose you could say your post was just a convenient jumping off point since I didn't agree with your construal of the disagreement This IMO directly implies you think I think that there's no point putting effort in. So I was clarifying what I mean and specifically I'm a cynic (neilhilist?) about putting that in for specific players but not so much in general. And anyway as I said before in multiple games I just find the notion distasteful compared to actually solving. Edited to add 2: Looks like Stick and Faerie are in a doc?