Kasimir
-
Posts
8611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Kasimir
-
Likely Xino I think. I'll do the vc >> Edited to add: Smh @Matrim's Dice what sort of votecount was that. Totally Unofficial and Not GM-Approved Vote Count: You missed so many people! >>
-
I don't know if I feel sure enough, and I think some of the players in the pool seem suspicious enough to me.
-
I do have a guess, yeah, but I've decided it's better not to mention it. I will say I feel it's moderately unlikely to be Dannex though. True, but claiming early always gives you more credibility than pulling it out at lylo. Wouldn't really be lylo in this case but close enough. Yeah. My current attitude is just ignoring the probabilities for now and taking all of this as a sign to look elsewhere. There's probably a bunch of TD lying and all but the small slice of stabs we can see is functionally close to a circular shooting gallery. I don't want to overthink this: 1/4 of this game is TDs, and there's likely at least one TD outside of the search grid, and as much as I like chilling with y'all, I would very much like to stab and enter Stabvana soon Maybe this matters if I'm one of the remaining duelists trying to find the last two TDs, but right now, the odds are still good. Well, I guess it could be done, but the question is really what you expect to do with it. Not stabbing a marked player does matter to us, but the real, direct/immediate wincon is stabbing a TD so I guess that's where the interest is. Knowing that none of the stabbed people were Marked C2 doesn't really help us in terms of trying to work out who the TDs might be. It's true that if you are Marked, you are not a TD, but again, we don't gain points from confirming Villagers - it's true it's good to know not to stab there, but it just seems a lot of work for little pay-off. I'm waiting to get judged by Devo now... >> A Bayesian model is just a model that employs Bayes' Theorem. Bayes' Theorem is considered quite useful because it tells us how to update our priors (initial probability assignments) given new evidence. There's a whole can of worms surrounding this, including big-R Internet Rationalist communities (who really misuse the actual academic term 'rationalism' but NEVERMIND I'm digressing again) - and there's actual academic debate about whether Bayes' Theorem is really that good a model of human rationality or belief revision. But in short, yeah, it's been used to build some pretty effective models for Search and Rescue, and so on. Like, it's a rabbithole you don't have to bother with, and I think this elides a lot of the disputes, but then again, that doesn't really affect the business of finding TDs which is what we wanna do, so lesgo
-
Okay, so mild digression. Anyone who dislikes this, just scroll below this section. I find this an interesting avenue and Araris probably would judge me if he saw my thoughts in the GM PM but lucky for me, he hasn't Theoretically what we are interested in is P(V!Bookwyrm | Dual Survival) or P(E!Bookwyrm | Dual Survival) - I don't really think it matters which one you calculate, because you just really want to be able to quantify how much more likely or how less likely the dual survivals make Bookwyrm likely to be Evil. For simplicity's sake, we are ignoring C1 with the assumption immunity was invoked. For this, you want to invoke Bayes' Theorem: P(E!Bookwyrm | Dual Survival) = P(Dual Survival | E!bookwyrm) * P(E!Bookwyrm) / P(Dual Survival) The main issue is that P(Dual Survival) is overall odds of dual survival, bracketing Bookwyrm's alignment. And the thing is, in a world where V!Bookwyrm wasn't marked, P(Survival) = 1. In a world where E!Bookwyrm, then it's very simply 0.25 because each time, an Elim has a 0.5 chance of dying, and each stab is independently flipped for. How to agglomerate the two, no idea, my brain is half asleep. I suppose you could do it by counting cases and then taking the number of cases in which dual survival happens, maybe? But they'd have to be a complete set of cases. I don't really know that I want to chase this rabbithole (I mean I probably do but like...Bookwyrm is one player and functionally I am better off trying to ID where else is worth stabbing rather than getting distracted.) The other issue is how to calculate P(E!Bookwyrm.) You could argue that since we know this is 6/6/4, functionally P(E!Bookwyrm) is just 1/4. Suffice to say I'm not really sure this is the right way to calculate P(E!Bookwyrm), given that's sort of dependent on how the distro is done. But okay, maybe we can say 1/4 is a sufficient proxy value. Agreed Well, that and kill pattern analysis IMO. Like, knowing who hit where just helps us answer one question: is there a dispersion pattern? If there is, then the obvious place to start TD hunting if we take at face value that all survivals were Village is to just go for where people haven't been stabbing. (Of course, might result in the TDs marking there too...) ...Huh. Now this reminds me of the Bayesian models used to build search grid patterns telling SAR where to look given the squares you have already searched. Not sure how they handle error, but there's sort of that there in the background - if we assume truthfulness (lol), then where do we go given the results we currently have? Edited to add: Turtle trauma intensifies >> On further reflection, I am okay with voting Xino as well. Want to see how things shake out before placing my final vote.
-
If you think C1 was the cycle the Elims invoked immunity, then you're pretty much committed to the view C1 survivals are evidentially meaningless. If we work with that supposition, then Bookwyrm looks like the guy I have some reason to want protected, on the basis of two survivals. One survival does look good for Chantara, Devo, and JNV, but not in itself decisive. I think I am okay with staying on JNV for the moment, but Bookwyrm is an option. (I tried to crunch P(V!Bookwyrm | Dual Survival) but it's just a hot mess I'm not touching because P(Dual Survival) is kayana >> If we ignore that supposition, then Wiz also begins to look good. Some credit to TUN and Whysper as well. Given multiple kills are possible, it's odd there's no Turtle kill claim at all, actually, since that's free Village cred. But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if the TDs are saving that quirk of the rules for closer to win point. Edited to add: If you fake claim for your teammates, you're effectively drawing a connection between yourself and them. It's fine until the Village gets lucky because when one of you flips, your connections will be looked at. I'm sure this will be IKYKed to hell and back but it's still a consideration.
-
This makes it: C1: Player Target Success/Failure Kas Whysper X Wiz Bookwyrm X Bookwyrm Wiz X Whysper Devo X ? Turtle O C2: Player Target Success/Failure Kas Chantara X Wiz Bookwyrm X Whysper Devo X JNV X X JNV didn't log in for C2, so categorically couldn't have placed any stab order. Last I checked, GMs generally don't accept doc orders.
-
Guessing this means there's a floating Mark somewhere? Are we really just hitting that badly or something? Are TDs rolling really well? Immunity? Is there a targeting pattern? As mentioned right before close, I went for Chantara over my other candidate. No dice. Edit: JNV. Probably will change later.
-
Ngl...I really don't want to be around longer, and I hope that I will have Zened out of the game after having stabbed a TD, but we'll know in a couple of seconds Just in case, since I'm still awake: Put in an order to stab Chantara. Sorry Devo, as you said, there isn't that much choice. Sorry Chantara if Marked shenanigans go down. It was a toss-up between you and Shshsh and the Sacred Coin told me to go for you. Side-comment: JNV hasn't been on in 22 hours. Last post dates to thirty four minutes after the cycle began. Unless the TDs used the immunity really early into the cycle (possible), there's at least a prima facie conflict between E!JNV and the idea the TDs went for the immunity C1. If you are strongly committed to the latter, you should probably be willing to less willing to believe in E!JNV. Edit: RIP Mat hasn't locked thread yet. See Wiz, Elk, Chan, Devo.
-
No real disagreement here. Minimises the harm Village-side, and I think even if they are Marked, Mat ruled that if they hit a TD that cycle, they win anyway and just sort of go out as well. Need to recheck the PM on this. Ultimately, it's a good time to do it, and you gotta work off your own reads, in the end. P.S. We do try to avoid double-posting, you might recall Just mark the new post with an edit. Unless it is a vote, in which case never edit that in.
-
Pairs. The key word: will mostly work out, if they split their claims, if they get what they want, which is to keep the numbers even. Your entire argument is predicated on the idea this will work perfectly for them. I disagree because teams plan and then players happen, which fundamentally means chaos happens. In my view, as players start successfully stabbing and disappearing with their partners, and some sabotage happens, the plausible space for TDs to hide vanishes. Trying to pass as paired with each other is risky for TDs. And the more we can exclude people from the pool of "who tf are they even plausibly paired with?" the smaller the space for the TDs to hide in. You can correctly accuse me of being too optimistic we'll stab some TDs but my argument very simply put is you do not simply cook numbers and invent connections that do not exist and not expect that to come back and bite you later on. It sure does. I've made my choice, but I agree the options aren't great. I will say my current conclusion is that C1 is plenty and I don't see a good way to keep with the standard SE hands-off etiquette. I would agree that if you hold to it, then your options are more limited. Ngl if you really feel you can't ethically stab anyone else, you're welcome to stab me if that helps. I've played enough to be a legitimate target. I do lean towards the unclaimed shot, and yet I also think it is...odd? Like. Turtle. Turtle feels like an odd Mark. Closer to the low info Marks unless it's a new player who saw QF63 and made that call. But I'd still expect the Mark to go on someone noisier. Maybe it's my kill meta showing through again, but part of me also feels like that's not a new player call? IDK. I am for now suspecting lurker TDs, at any rate. Whysper? I'd like to thank you for deciding you needed to summarise the rest of my post in one paragraph. Very economical of you! I appreciate this
-
Yeah, basically. It's just the way the incentives are structured. I'd expect TDs to care a bit more but I'd reckon C1 shows they don't - yet. Eh, later as more people get Marked, I think the calculus shifts because people want immunity to be able to successfully carry out their win con. This goes away if they don't expect to be stabbed. But I won't disagree it feels like a good place to find TDs. But a lot of this depends on correctly modelling Elim team behaviour >> *grumble cjiuyuf Shades hgcufeytfdwyu*
-
That's what I was wondering, but from the other angle: that with four of them, if they were minded to mess with the immunity, they'd just do it. But I do V!read Devo at the moment, however slightly - I'll admit it's just based off gut and her vibe rather than anything I'd take to the bank - and if I stick with that, then I have to also accept the conclusion the TDs weren't really concerned last cycle since one of them could've very easily tied off the vote by voting another player. Same problem really: it's a reverse-lynch so the vibe is different and it might not be telling that there's no urgency. But I think we can all agree the energy just wasn't there in the voting. I figure that if there's a fight for immunity, we'll maybe see it as player group size decreases and there are more latent Marks they want us to trigger. But IDK. RIP. Edited to add: Like maybe think about it this way. I know I'm Village. I don't know about you, truthfully, but let's suppose you are. Opposite problem for you, of course. If I am Village and you are Village, then we had a pure Village train win by a single vote to grant Devo immunity. This feels like the sort of thing that only happens if Devo is Evil or if the TDs are comfortable with it. I'm currently still okay with V!Devo for now, though again, admit I wouldn't take this to the bank. So the only other conclusion I have to draw is that the TDs are comfortable with it. I seem to recall a number of the votes were really stable too, and also non-participation of > 50% of the player list, which just seems to underscore a C1 that the TDs (and most players!) were fairly comfortable with/ It stands to reason for players - only one Mark, and stabs don't kill so no one felt particularly motivated to anything. Edited to add 2: Sorry, my brain is scrambled egg right now. When I said that four of them could just mess with the immunity - Village is very divided this game and has no real incentive to vote together or even vote at this stage. Easy for four coordinated Elims to scatter and just mess with the votes for the outcome they want. Wouldn't even need a hammer at these numbers. For all we know, the Elims all voted.
-
Adding Wiz to the conversation since it's the same thing. Basically. The whole point, you [Devo] and Whysper contend, is that claiming teams gives them an incentive to Mark someone in Sadeas's Slayers this cycle to try to get the duelist pair kill they want to. For optimisation purposes. I don't really have a strong opinion since I don't understand this game beyond 'try to stab TD' and some stabs at the sort of dynamic that exists. Marking a claimed SS is only effective insofar as they think there's appetite to stab there. Since that's basically what the TDs want, or so you both think, I'm not inclined to play along. I think slight lopsidedness is more effective in helping us work out extra dispositions. Sure, they'll just mark someone else, or chance the IKYK, but we can't force them to not Mark anyway. Second best to me seems to be forcing them to go for the Mark strategy they'd really rather not have gone for, if they had a choice. Like...how can we shape their Mark choices? On the face of it, we really can't. They're going to Mark whoever. If you think about it though, we sort of can/can't? Like if we're all committed to random stabbing, there's nothing much they can do there so they'll probably just go for whatever maxes their interests. But clearly their Mark strategy is going to be partly shaped by what we are saying here and their read of the gamestate and their tactical considerations so I guess we do have some say. This does assume they'd like people killed ASAP rather than waiting for the long term Mark/stab lottery issue. Just as I'm not sure I'm unconvinced they will try to also shape stabbing decisions. Probably made harder by the fact we're not actually discussing TD suspects in thread. I'm not sure that's a can of beagles I want to open right now. They could go for a Mark everyone and wait for us to eventually hit the stab lottery play, which I don't think I can rule out. But given the longer the game drags, the more they might worry we get lucky, I do wonder if they're gonna be cool with that. They get one Mark per cycle so I feel there will be some measure of prioritisation/decision-making/desire to mark the most likely target. You could say that it might've been better for me to not have declared who I wasn't down for hitting to force them to still mark among the SSes and waste the Mark. Maybe so. But to be fair, that'd probably still be a timebomb later in the game anyway. As Wiz points out correctly, the Mark stays. And it could very much be like a MR56 arson sort of Red Wedding, depending. So I sure dunno if that was the best move, yeah. And yeah Wiz I don't disagree that they'll mark us all eventually. The hope is to start getting them out before that. Mat at least doesn't seem to think this will be a twelve cycle game - he was struggling to believe it'd even be nine cycles and I think one of Devo's projections was four cycles? IDK. Full disclaimer that I have hot tea, a whole bunch of meds, and I don't know what I think anymore. I'm basically just throwing out thoughts to see if we can make some sense of them Hmm ok. Turtle's an interesting Mark choice, though. Where my NKA guy at >> Edited to add: Goodnight if I am passing out before the thread comes back to life >> Edited to add 2: ty! Edited to add 3: @Devotary of Spontaneity, thoughts on the fact no one has claimed the stab? Feels like the sort of thing where a counterclaim should be an instant call for a stabbing.
-
I swear never to talk philosophy on the Shard and then this thread happens Well, this more or less overlaps with existing philosophical debates on the nature of moral duties/obligations towards future generations and past generations, since in a real sense, duties towards future people are, I would argue, just as nebulous as duties towards possible other selves, or I suppose if you prefer the more exciting technical jargon, possible world counterparts. It just so happens that in the Cosmere, we are compelled to be modal realists (i.e. in the case of using an Essence Mark, these 'possible' other selves become very real other selves!), and thus the welfare of possible world counterparts has to be taken seriously. ^ This foregoing is sort of to harden to question you're posing, about what grounds we might have to think that something is owed to the Essence Mark Person, i.e. that EMP has rights as well. I think the question here is really whether it is ethically permissible. That is to say, the judgement might not be whether it is the ethical thing to do (or I presume, as your question is really asking, the ethically bad thing to do) but whether ethics permits this, or prohibits this. This distinction matters because there are many acts which are ethically permissible, but aren't in themselves imbued with any kind of ethical value one way or another, e.g. reading The Lost Metal. Either way, in my view, the relevant considerations here are: This entire argument hinges on two argumentative moves. First, that an Essence Mark Person is closer to being another person, than it is to being an alternate version of Current Person. Let's call this [AM1]. Second, that the difference between EMP and CP is sufficient to anchor a moral judgement that causing EMP to cease existing is tantamount to murder. Let's call this [AM2]. I think you need at least [AM2] to be true in order to deem removing the Essence Mark impermissible, but realistically, you want both [AM1] and [AM2], barring odd views about self-murder that I'm going to bracket here. [AM2] isn't the same as [AM1]: you can reject the view that an EMP is relevantly close to being another person (note that this is not the same as claiming that an EMP qualifies for personhood!) I suppose technically, you could try to establish a third argument, [AM3] that removing the Essence Mark is still a morally impermissible act, even if it is not of the same badness as murder. But then the onus is to cash out why it is morally impermissible. An account is owed here, and it will likely involve at least a claim to personhood on the part of EMP. Arguably, applying the Essence Mark also destroys the person you currently are. If we consider the new individual to have rights and personhood, then it is only fair and consistent that we also consider the very act of applying an Essence Mark to be an act of violence against Current Person. We could try to argue the Essence Mark is temporary, or intended to be temporary, which is why it is not in fact morally wrong to use one. But if we do that, then the same objection applies to Essence Mark Person: if temporary status defuses the 'badness' of applying an Essence Mark in the first place, why not expect it to also defuse the 'badness' of removing it? Are you really a different person? And I think there has to be actual argumentative work done to show that both moves are justified. The fact that the Essence Mark more or less modulates between versions of you suggests that there's a common 'youness' there, an essence we would, in philosophical jargon, refer to as 'personal identity.' It is the notion that Shaizan is as much Shai, just different, as Forger Shai. Shai doesn't just slap on an Essence Mark and become Renarin. If the premise that 'you are a different person' [AM1] cannot be sustained, or at least the premise that the different you is so significantly different that this difference can anchor the same, distinctive moral status that another person enjoys [AM2] cannot be sustained, then there is no problem, to put it simply. (This consideration doesn't really put pressure on [AM2]. For this, we'd want to check [AM2].) To sharpen the previous point, think about the debate on personal identity. We may (perhaps this isn't true for everyone) undergo significant psychological changes across our lives. We change our defining outlooks, we remember some things more clearly, and forget some things. There are more extreme thought experiments - outlined by Derek Parfit (1984) in Reasons and Persons, Part 3. We can imagine a person who goes through a Saul on the road to Damascus moment and repudiates everything they believed as a young adult, holds on to a different set of memories. Yet the common-sense intuition is that this is the same person. (This argument, by the way, won't be persuasive to the person who bites the bullet and says there's a reason pre-Damascus Saul isn't Paul ) If you accept this intuition, then you're more or less committed to the view we seem to think that a person can survive significant psychological change. That's reason enough to think that 'destroying' the alternate self by removing the Essence Mark isn't actually morally equivalent to murdering another person, and is therefore ethically permissible. I think committing to the idea that this is no different from rejecting and destroying other selves that could very coherently exist when we make choices also gives us reason to reject [AM3]. Another thing we do want to think about in this ballpark: suppose there is an Evil, or at least extremely immoral person who desires to become good, and does, in fact, manage that after decades. We do want to say this sort of radical psychological shift is laudable, and that it isn't actually committing an act of murder against the person they used to be, and is therefore impermissible! That would be a very odd view to be committed to. A cheeky rejoinder is you could, of course, go ultra-hedonist, or ultra-utilitarian, and argue that it is permissible as long as the Essence Mark Person is a 'life worth living', i.e. a life of overall utility or hedonic value, over the short shelf-life! The downside is that most of us are not prepared to accept the consequences (in my view) of committing to the idea that it is okay to terminate the Essence Mark as long as that life, which would not have come into being without it, was in value theory and ethical terms, of positive value. (It's one thing to say this about animals, and another thing for people to accept this about persons, which I think is a fair objection.) FWIW I lean towards the view it's permissible but think it could make a very fun research paper because just cashing out the prima facie argument in favour of why this should be ethically impermissible will be fun work.
-
Xino. Opening it. Edited to add: Looks like apart from the Turtle shot, everyone else failed their action. I'm curious if everyone else put in a kill on a Villager, or if the TDs had immunity or just flipped well on the 50%. My kill went in on Whysper. Had a bad feeling about her first post and the fact she was continuously lurking, and then wanted to switch off her nearer EoC but the Sacred Coin said no. FWIW, the Sacred Coin said to vote Turtle in QF63 so I felt it deserved a bit of trust Worth IDing a range of player targets you'd hit, or will that just make it easier for the TDs to sabotage? Prima facie I'm not willing to hit anyone within <TUN, Xino, Silho, Cinnamon> for obvious reasons. Edited to add 2: @Matrim's Dice What's your stance on the matter? Are you making your own puns or are you accepting submissions? Edited to add 3: @Devotary of Spontaneity, does the events of C1 change in any way your view of TD disadvantage? Anyway, due to timezones, I don't expect to be around when the thread heats up. Have managed to catch the flu again so I am going to be trying to sleep and/or read The Lost Metal. Have put in my stab order for the cycle, may Tyr guide our blades.
-
Though ngl, the cynic in me who survived MR3 basically does not see Whysper's plan as feasible, even leaving out worries about whether it would or would not be fun. Village gonna Village. Players gonna player.
-
Currently willing to vote for one of Devo, Whysper. Edited to add: I agree with you on likelihood, but believe E!Maili would've just claimed one of the two off the bat and aggressively phished.
-
TDs have 50% chance of survival, don't they? A move like this will probably get them to burn the group immunity C1 in order to make it difficult for us to identify who the TDs are supposed to be, since stabs are inert on actual players. Cool. Glad we're on the same page. My view has basically been said in exchange with Devo: that the more we establish, the easier it is for the survivors to catch the TD in a lie. Part of this does hinge on denying them the ability to keep disappearance numbers even and players making good C1 stabs, but if we can establish numbers, even numbers that have been tainted, then we can identify prima facie falsehoods. Like sure, we'll probably end up with 8/8 in a full claim scenario, but anyone who expected the TDs to call themselves TDs on C1 is delusional and should be taken to the infirmary. The point isn't that they will 'just lie' - it's that we want to catch them lying so that if we're still around by C3, we have a better idea as to where to go. The problem remains that they can't kill, which means they are fundamentally dependent on us playing along to execute the marked target. I'm down for voting to protect a claimed player who might be the other half of a pair next cycle. This will probably reduce their marking options, but then that's still helpful when trying to decide who to strike. This means they either have to try to guide targeting by thread discussion, push for a full FFA, or just really hope that we'll oblige them.
-
Hmm. How do you then think Village players should play? Pro-social or anti-social? Every duelist for themselves, or to cooperate towards attempting to ID the TDs and get the kills where possible?
-
Ah good luck! RL and exams >>> gaming for sure!
-
How does this influence the way you intend to play this cycle, and how do you believe that player can be identified? @Devotary of Spontaneity, @Whysper, I see you checking in on the thread repeatedly. Thoughts, comments, questions? @Cinnamon Feel free to join in Edited to add: @Mr. Misting I see you as well :eyes:
-
This is my list (public in thread) so far: Aladar Sadeas Kas Xino Devo (?) TUN Wiz (?) Silho Turtle But caution: TDs could easily be lying. Devo and Wiz are listed off RP claims but could easily be false. I don't know that I can defend the view that these are all correct...apart from my own
-
Your thoughts on that? Edited to add: I acknowledge it might be an unfair question as you're busy, but I'm curious about your instinctive thoughts on the matter. I'm pro-claiming, Devo is anti-claiming but thinks it's an experiment.
-
I've just barely settled on a mildly positive read of Devo and you must come and make me doubt it?
-
Would not underestimate the importance of logistics. To be fair, Roshar can't be awful at it, given the number of wars they'd've fought in, but that being said, feels like Soulcasters etcetera have given them an edge in not having to worry as much about supply lines. Not sure this functions as well for them if waging a war of aggression (defense is probably a different story.)
