Kasimir

Echoing this as well and apologising if anyone has been distressed by my arguments/posts I think the rest of this is best left for the meta, but I'm largely not interested in defending the GM PM stuff. Minimally, I'm interested in excavating a space for meta-arguments to be harnessed as simply another source of evidence. Maximally, I'm arguing there is a distinction on several fronts between using GM PM phrasing, and recognising that a player was making a distinctive Village-seeming roleclaim, which is nonetheless defeasible (which is what was relevant to this game, and being done here.) Edited to add: Now, the part where this blurs is that some players may take the GM PM stuff to be all the same. So the part where I attempt to draw the distinction and to defend it as part of a multi-modal system of reasoning would be the direct game-related part here

Me at the amount of vote manipulation apparently going on this game:

Makes sense to me, and also clears things up in terms of analysis. I'll take a look. Psychology is wonderful indeed Philosophers paying more attention to it has been good for the profession. Edited to add: I'm not really interested in further engaging in this debate at this point, at the cost of derailing the thread. (Sorry El and GMs.) I've defended my arguments and Illwei's (to a much lesser extent), and anyone else can @ me or fight me elsewhere (my PMs are open.) @Lotus: Apologies, but specifically whose vote did you target?

Disagree. As Araris pointed out, Eliminators could lie. They could also ask the GMs for information and to give that information. [Edited to add: I also note that I have already identified in a previous post and in communication with you that the GM PM might contain that information already.] I have also already specified that this is not what I am primarily interested in defending, since it has already been stated numerous times that the GMs are not allowing this, and neither are the community rules. So if you repeat it in future, in any case, you would be in violation of SE rules. And I'm not interested in asking people to violate SE rules. [Edited to add: In other words, this isn't about you. If you think that's defending what you did, that's a whole other debate I'm not interested in exploring because it involves actual concrete SE rules. I'm defending what I said, and what, to a very lesser extent, Illwei said. @TJ Shade ] It's fine if you want to adopt as your ethical yardstick: "Would the other person enjoy this?" I just point out again that this is a particular ethical claim, not a universal one. You are saying, "I don't find this unethical." Not "This is universally unethical." I certainly use this as the basis of my reasoning that I don't out players without their consent or without telling them I am doing so - because I don't enjoy it when Maili does it to me. I don't think this is good enough to tell everyone not to do it though. But ultimately, my point continues to be: there has been a continuous tendency in SE to wave off players who want to appeal to meta factors in their reasoning. If you think that this is not okay, what about Teft's activity? What about overriding any evidence of you or me playing suspiciously with the knowledge we are busy? This is directly overriding analysis-based reasoning with meta-information. What about reasoning about role distributions, i.e. the likelihood of three Village role-blockers? El considers that meta. Would you? You certainly were okay with using it as a factor in considering Mat suspicious. What about the likelihood of every vote manipulator being Village? You claimed it would upset game balance. That's an argument from game design. It is a meta-argument that does not work off analysis. You can argue it's not meta. And that's where my point about the troubled definition of meta comes in: if we define meta as "everything I don't like and wouldn't do", then we're talking past each other. I think I also need to emphasise the context of this post. As I've said, this debate has occurred on and off on the margins of SE for a while now. I've noticed a persistent dismissal of players who do want to do meta reasoning about anything, e.g. role distributions. We've often been dismissed with poor arguments ("What about LG5? Spanreed! What about GMs? X or Y wouldn't do this!") and left to rot. I'm tired of this. I'm tired of being disrespected, and I'm tired of being told that my reasons are automatically wrong just because they're being defined as meta. And I am absolutely, bloody tired of getting dismissed with bad arguments that don't bother to look at what I'm actually advocating, or the particularity of the games being cited. Aren't you? Is anyone else? Edited to swap 'vote distributions' for 'role distributions', which is what I meant, in the fourth-last paragraph.

Did you add a vote to anyone, though? Edit: @Lotus I'm sure someone will go "Kas, how is it you can write this but are too busy to analyse?" To which, I am guilty as charged - I just genuinely felt compelled to respond because I've had these arguments with a few players on and off, and at some point, I just had to say something as someone who used to study human reasoning from a normative perspective for a living.

[OOC] So, I wanted to address Araris's point because something about it nagged at me last Turn but I wasn't really in the place to sit down and think about why. And then I slept on it I recognise part of this is going to, of necessity, pertain to things better talked about in an OOG thread. It's fine if the GMs or IMs tell me to desist. I just seem to have a chronic inability to shut up about things I'm going to use purple to indicate where I make bold markings as compared to Araris's original. Before I do this, I want to make it clear that we all are aware that the general rules of SE, which apply to every game but I'm going to cite them here again for reference: Asking people to prove that they have the same GM PM by citing a specific word in the GM PM has gone into a grey area and has been called off by the GMs. This should not be done in the game, and we have all accordingly desisted. 1. As someone who was in training to be a professional philosopher, I always have to ask what people mean by words. Words are important, and if we don't mean the same things, then we get into pointless fights because we aren't even talking about the same thing. "Lynches based on meta information are bad." What sort of badness are we talking about here? Ethical badness? I certainly think it's somewhat ethically wrong to out players without their consent. It sure didn't stop Maili from becoming famous for info dumping if we revealed information to him and later lynched him. And I certainly do out players anyway when I feel it is absolutely necessary. The point I am making is this: if the badness inherent to using meta information is an ethical one, I question if this sort of ethical badness is meant to be universal, i.e. all players should recognise it is ethically bad and not do it, or it is meant to be particular, i.e. I think it is bad, and I as a player would not engage in it. If it is a particular ethical badness, then it has no power to become a constraining norm that binds the entire game. If it is a universal ethical badness, we must ask what the basis of this norm is. b. Now, one natural response might be semi-Kantian. "If I, as a player, recognise that using meta information is particularly ethically bad, I should also will that other players recognise the ethical badness of using meta information." Thus, universal norms are particular norms writ large. The problem with this response is: why is the ethical badness of using meta information so special? Consider the Maili case again. The community response to Maili was as follows: don't give information to Maili unless you want to risk your information being dumped. In other words, what determines the difference between cases where the community response to particular norms is no, and where the community response to particular norms is yes? Where is the ethical basis that determines the difference between our moral responses? I'm waiting [For the record, my personal views are that that community norms are simply community norms - some of them are ethical, but some of them are not, and there is no especial basis apart from mod or communal fiat. But if community norms are largely based on mod or communal grounds, then we cannot expect these grounds to have a particular ethical character, or to support ethical claims of badness.] c. If we can't find a basis for the claim of universal ethical badness, then we have two questions to answer: why think it is universally ethically bad, if we have no reason nor ground for this? Moreover, what might be the source of confusion such that I consider meta information lynches to be universally ethically bad? This is a non-trivial exercise best left for another meta-ethics paper 2. Let's presume the badness here isn't an ethical one though. I certainly think there are ethical dimensions, as Araris acts and writes as though he believes there definitely is ethical badness involved. But we can also notice two other strands of thought in what he says: a. It's epistemically (read: informationally) bad: basing trusts and lynches on meta information can be wrong and can lead to losing the game. i.e. "lynches based on meta information are bad IMO, and trusts based on them can be wrong and lead to losing the game." I'm going to assume here Araris is referring to precedent, but we also need to be both charitable and critical about Araris's argument. Clearly, game loss comes apart from regarding meta information as a basis for trust. Perhaps he's referring to what happens if all players acted that way, but I certainly don't think anyone is making a claim that all players should use meta-information! But here's the problem. What distinguishes meta information - epistemically-speaking - from making arguments based off player behaviour, or gut, or even voting patterns? Players can act irrationally. Players have had bad gut reads before. People's guts have been Darkfriends. People have falsely read voting patterns to make wrong inferences before. Just look at me trying to get Elk as a Jeskeri last game - yeah, no, he was a Cultist. Ask yourselves: have you ever analysed a post or voting pattern and made a mistake before? If you haven't made a mistake, please @ me - if you can provide evidence of your infallibility, I'll follow your lead in voting for the rest of this game. Eliminators, this applies to you as well. If you can show me proof that you have only ever 100% been correct in your Eliminator reads in SE, I'll follow your lead. I'll wait. I'll bet none of you - except possibly Orlok, and I don't think even Orlok has been completely infallible without the need to correct himself - can meet that criterion. And that's because the point is that meta information isn't epistemically different from player behaviour, gut, vote analysis, or post analysis. Let's be clear: meta information isn't epistemically privileged over player behaviour, gut, vote analysis, or post analysis. But neither is the latter epistemically privileged over the former. They are sources of evidence. Sources of evidence can be wrong. Part of this is due to the nature of epistemic inferences, as inference is inherently none truth-preserving. I can go into this in greater detail as it's been part of my academic work for the past ten years or so, but that's best left for Discord, a dead doc, or another paper on epistemic inferences and truth-preservation Now, let's take a look at the Wilson claim. Part of the problem is we need to distinguish between what Araris is talking about, which involves a move from basing trusts or lynches entire on meta information and nothing else and never, ever revising your beliefs, to...regarding meta information as one out of many sources of evidence. Let's be clear: Wilson's trust in Claincy as an info hub was partly based on timezone analysis. It was also based on an assumption about Eliminator behaviour that turned out to be false: that a player who was so clearly uninterested in being told information and participating in an information hub was unlikely to be an Eliminator. If we want to balance that out, we can take MR4 again: part of my basis for narrowing down Spy suspects to include Karlin was basically the fact that my timezone used to be a bit weird for SE - and Karlin shared a similar timezone, and I was in an anonymous PM with the Elim because of RNGesus. I didn't get to act on it as there were other things and Karlin didn't say much in thread, but I was rambling on suspects in my GM PM with Wyrm. Where does this leave us? So: if you use post analysis as your source of evidence, and only post analysis, and fail to account for and aggregate other sources of evidence or context, and you fail to revise your beliefs in the face of countervailing evidence, you end up with: "Wyrm contradicted himself! Elim! Lynch him!" And then you end up with bad votes, and possibly, losing the game. Funny how that works, isn't it? It's almost like the epistemic badness doesn't emerge from the source of evidence itself, but from poor epistemic behaviour on the part of the player Let's take stock. I'm arguing so far that we can't simply claim that the badness of meta information is inherent to meta information qua meta information: that this has much more to do with players being epistemically vicious (i.e. opposite of virtuous) rather than it has to do with meta information as a source of evidence in and of itself. But barring what has been @Illwei's view on Mint and myself, I don't think of us are making this claim! (But I'll come back to this after the section break, in my handy tldr; for this game before y'all scream at me for making this esoteric.) b. it's pragmatically bad: doing this makes things unfun for other players. i.e. It also just breaks the game, and makes it less fun for everyone (or at least for people who like doing analysis). It's like in One Night Werewolf, where you don't say anything if you heard someone moving their card around during the night. Does it, though? Does it, really, though? Again, as I have clarified at the start of this mini-essay, no one is talking about the three prohibitions from the SE rules. While my arguments may be taken to partly attack their basis, I am much more concerned with problematising the whole issue of meta information in the first place. I would argue there's a distinction between saying, "Only a Villager would secretly roleclaim the way Mint did," and demanding that all other players cough up their GM PMs. One is gamebreaking and rule-breaking. The other is not game-breaking, and may be grey by the rules. But in this particular game, we have already wandered into the grey twilight realm anyway. Is it game breaking? Is it any more game breaking than having a Seeker create a trust and Mayor the whole village and tell people what to do? Any more fun destroying than that, by any chance? Let's be clear: no one here is asking players to reason this way. This began from Illwei saying he reasons this way, and from me saying, "Gee, Araris, in light of some presumptive, defeasible reason to think Mint is a Villager, I'm interested in why you're zooming in on her like this." No one at all is saying: "Everyone should reason this way. Analysis, schmanalysis, who needs that?" I think the charge that: if we acknowledge some players will and do reason this way, then it will break the game and no one will have fun, or at least, players who enjoy analysis won't have fun is extremely exaggerated. How do we get from one to the other? Do you think, for instance, that maybe players who enjoy RP are any less put off by the constant focus on analysis? Or that players who like being chaotic and going on a gut level are any less annoyed by being made to analyse? How the ruddy hell do we deal with that? The same we always have. By asserting that within limits, it is okay for players to do the things they do, as long as it doesn't become a game-wide expectation that everybody plays this way, or else! If players are reasoning using meta information as one source of information, I don't see how this is game-breaking. I also would go so far as to say that One Night Werewolf is fundamentally a communal norm. If you want to make this a communal norm in SE, fine. I accept communal norms as the price of doing business in a community, but I don't pretend to reify them if they are not based in rationality. You can claim: "Well, if we stop saying it's bad, more people would do it, and that would make discussion boring." To which my response is: "Too bad. Deal with it." You want more analysis? Encourage players to do more. Bring that up in discussion. Stop engaging deeply in meta debates and engage players in analysis debates to shift the focus of the thread. Honestly, I used to be really put off by having to do pages and pages of analysis, which is why I've started to play the game more Kasually. And I could level the same charge: coming as an RP style player, it can be quite off-putting for players to miss what I'm doing or to fail to engage because they're not there for RP. Doesn't sound nice, does it? The whole point of being a community is we have to tolerate each other. We have to allow for diversity in playstyles. And while I'm on this, thanks to those who put up with my failed attempts at quoting for the first cycle-and-a-half. On a very crude, practical level: Someone show me where Illwei is breaking everyone's fun. Or I am. (This post excepted ) I'll wait. 3. What do we define as meta? I think this is a relevant question to ask. Clearly, not everything OOG or about the game is considered 'meta' in the unacceptable way. Is it unacceptable for players to blue-text inform us they are busy and can't commit attention to the game as a way of prefacing or explaining differences in their playstyle? If meta reasoning is unacceptable, is it unacceptable for us to say, "Okay, TJ seems suss but he's busy, and so I grant that he doesn't do as deep analysis as he used to"? You are directly letting out of game reasoning impact your own in-game analysis. You are allowing it to function as a mitigating factor. You are allowing it to serve as a counter-point to analysis-based reasoning. Do not give me anything about how it's not being used as evidence. It's being used as a counterpoint. How about this: Teft has last logged in to 17S on Tuesday, at 12:02PM (my time.) Is that meta-information? Would you use it to reason that Teft cannot have been the one to do any vote manipulation this cycle? How about this: if we know there is last minute vote manipulation that required recent knowledge of lynch states, would you look to see which players were or tend to be on at the end of the cycle? If you have answered yes to any of these questions, or no to any of these questions, why or why not? Do you think everyone shares your views of what is meta? Where do you draw the line, and what is your basis for the determination? What do you think makes your views correct? Here is the promised tldr; for everyone: Some players dislike the use of meta-information. Araris is among them, and so is El, and probably Wilson. I respect that, and I'm quite frankly tired of having to defend different views; I hope the same respect will be extended to those of us who treat it as just another source of evidence, within the rules of the community and the game. Respecting and accommodating differences in the way we play and reason has been core to SE. I hope this will continue. I argue that meta-reasoning is like any other source of evidence: players reason badly when they do not open themselves to revising their beliefs, or when they do not bother to account for other sources of evidence. I argue that no source of evidence (in general, with exceptions) should assume priority over the other. I argue that charges that meta-reasoning is bad because it is ethically bad, pragmatically bad, or epistemically bad cannot account for either how the community functions or cannot be substantiated without appeal to a player's preferences. In SE, the solution has generally been to accommodate each other's preferences and to maintain fun. I argue that meta-reasoning properly harnessed it not intrinsically anti-fun. I argue that the line between meta and OOG and non-meta is fundamentally troubled anyway, and that distinctions drawn are not going to be bedrock and can be open to charges of ad-hocery. The direct application for this game: I don't think anyone apart from @Illwei has argued that Mint should be treated as a Villager without reservation. Illwei has since adjusted his view, which will be for the better. My personal read on Mint is mild/tentatively Village, partly for Illwei's reason, and partly for circumstantial reasons that I won't elaborate on at this point in time. My own read on Mint certainly isn't exclusively based on her claim, given the circumstantial reasons. I have thus also appropriately regarded it as a weak read, since Mint hasn't said much more. If anything, my question to Araris from D2 might be appropriately phrased as thus: why do you not engage with the people who do think there is weak reason to believe Mint a Villager? He has answered that he considers it defeasible. Well and good. I will and have adjusted my views on Araris accordingly. Thank you to anyone who made it to the end.

[OOC] [Mild exkasperation] Is it really this hard to read the thread? I stated I was voting Sart with ny spare vote as I wanted him to confirm TJ's account. I even highlighted Sart's name in orange (Lahilt's earlier) to indicate this would happen. The third player messaged me to let me know they were voting Lahilt with their spare vote. The movements on Lotus and Pyro are the unknown votes. Edited to add: Moreover, Sart read the thread. So I was not inclined to remove my vote given his unresponsiveness.

[OOC] Sigh. I can see one option here, which is to bracket questions of likely guilt and to lynch informationally. Which means identifying a player who is central to the D1 lynches and discussions and to lynch them in order to start using them as a data point to make sense of other players' dispositions. The issue with pure informational lynches is that I don't find them very ethical, and so I'd rather not go there if we don't have to, because that just tends to ruin things for other players. (Sure sucked for Jain.) I'm aware this is an option, but I'm not desperate enough to want to do this, even if Meta was pretty gung-ho about it. P.S. If y'all think lynching me is informational though, then go for it if you don't have a better candidate. I don't really care/mind So okay, this isn't going to be optimal, but whatever. It's 5:43AM at this point and I can't afford to keep agonising about this. Very well, Araris, your PM was convincing enough. I'm still going to be watching you though. Thoughts while I wait for my migraine medications to kick in. I'm probably going to miss rollover at this rate, so I better make it count: #1: @Teft the mosshead, what are your thoughts? Come and join us! #2: Lahilt. I'm going to be brutally frank: this isn't because I've done some awesome analysis or found some issue. It's a hunch based off what Araris said at the start of D2 (Eliminator profile) and extremely circumstantial. But at this point, I'm going for it.

Can confirm. I remember. IIRC Wilson says it's more complicated than that but it boils down to the timezone being the crucial piece of evidence, yeah.

You've ninja-ed me enough times. Now I am the Master

That's in another place @Straw plays in, IIRC. I'll flag @Elbereth and the GMs ( @Elkanah and @The_God_King) for this, but the last time the ruling was communicated to me (MR38) by the IM and GM, the issue is that SE used to have a competitiveness problem that was turning players off, and there's a worry encouraging or permitting comprehensive sheets or visualisations would encourage the return to that. I was also told that using visualisations was discouraged because you're supposed to communicate things in your own words, and the visualisations can cut right through that, especially if you're very good with them. Anyway, flagging El because the official ruling might have changed. (As of the last QF, my understanding from some semi-official communications was that it hasn't been explicitly banned yet, but also, prefer if you don't.) tldr; It's Complicated.

I'd agree with this, TBH. His Divine Grace ( @The_God_King) has already ruled that a unique action can only be performed once a cycle. In other words, proving it by using it during the day is kind of pointless - well, it'd prove that Mat is telling the truth, but as @Gears pointed out (and TJ, ninjaed), an Eliminator may still be truthful. At the start of the argument, when we were presented with a dichotomy between Mat and TJ, such that it seemed only one of them could be truthful, being able to verify Mat as a role-blocker would've been valuable. It's less valuable now, especially given the opportunity cost. Why? Because if you can block an Eliminator Night Kill, that would be immensely valuable. That saves a life, and tells us who an Elim is. (No pressure, eh, Mat? Gamma still holds the SE record for goalkeeping, I think. IIRC - LG2 or something, before my time, he blocked several consecutive Elim kills. That's pretty awesome I aspire to a shadow of his greatness.) Anyway, thanks @Vapor, Vapor. Perfectly understandable, where tech issues are concerned I think my current trouble now is that without the space, attention, and focus to do analysis, I'm ending up doing the thing where I vote based on things that jump out at me. Which may or may not be Village/Elim. But I'm still going to be only half-present (which I hope is better than not present at all) until I clear the reports that got dumped on me. I do want to at least attempt to contribute to the ongoing discussion though, so: Araris. Let's add some pressure Partly a bit of a negative gut read off your diagnosis of Silberfarben's death. I'm trying to put my finger on what makes me uneasy about it. I'm going to assume it's down to the Eliminator profile you mentioned. And partly because I distrust how you're trying to suggest that my self-voting was specifically for the purposes of dodging your vote. Dodge what? Why would I bother? I have a known history of self-voting for various reasons and I have the receipts. Among them, MR4 (you were the Eliminator there, and you killed me), and we played AG and AG2 together, among others. You played all those games with me - I don't see how you get off trying to toss suspicion around like Salt Bae Why do you think Mint and Illwei are connected, more than Mint attempting to use her GM PM text to claim Villager smack in the middle of D1? Edited: hi i is wols i is ninjaed by everyone and their skaa

[OOC] I'm content to - for the moment - regard it as Villager-on-Villager misunderstanding, especially given the utility of role-blocking but reserve my right to change my views when it's not Cycle 2 I'm happy to leave my votes where they are for now. In any case, I still am not able to give this the level of attention/focus required.

[OOC] Fair enough. Consider the vote retracted. @Sart, I know you know who role blocked you, or at least who claimed to. I want to know if we've been told the same name. You can PM me or it goes in thread, I don't particularly care. Use your own judgment on info hygiene. Sart

[OOC] Urgh. So more work came in, and as usual, it's always urgent >> I'm going to state upfront that I still won't be able to do deep reading or analysis until at least tomorrow, if I gird my loins and just clear all the tasks at once. I will commit to at least giving a set of reads before the cycle (not Turn) ends. Preferably I will be back by the end of the Turn, but that's assuming certain tasks get done fast which might not be true. (I'll be happy to blue text if necessary.) Being the office Taln has its disadvantages Thoughts so far: -I've claimed many PAFOs from the GMs and have a number of findings. I'm going to need time to sit down and write them up in an organised way but I can at least say immediately that we have weak reason to believe that the stages theory is untrue. I'll get into it later on. -At this point, I'm waiting to see what develops between Mat and TJ. -What I can say is that Illwei, myself, and a third player (to be kept anonymous) have confirmed we have the same disease with the same description and ability. This leads me to think that it is unlikely that there is a mismatch, i.e. Balanced Abilities (diseases with an ability and penalty) should be unique to each particular descriptor in a 1:1 manner. - @Ashbringer, @Lahilt I'm interested in why you both had opposite reactions to Silber given it is common for players to immediately strategise for their role. Ash seemed to completely ignore this dimension [Note: I accept the stab vote rationale, but I'm pointing out that if a player does something that might indicate they are a Seeker, they have every reason to want to play peripherally all the more - dead Seekers are bad Seekers! ] , and Lahilt to be immediately interested in it. I am marginally more concerned about Lahilt because he asked about the basis for which Silber believed there to be an alignment scanner. I think a Eliminator has reason to be more interested in reasons to think an alignment scanner exists. Asking Silber about this when Silber posted early enough for any such reason to be unlikely to be any PM other than a GM PM makes me uneasy. [Note: I am aware orange is not for votes. I am using it to denote I am willing to place my second vote on Lahilt, just like a normal lynch vote.] -My mild trust of Mint (for D1) was based off her deliberately referencing the GM PM debate early enough on D1 and claiming loyal intern. I checked in on whether her choice of words was deliberate and she confirmed it. Again, before the lynch. Now, we don't know the wording of the Elim win con (which could say to outnumber or kill all loyal interns) so I read it as a slightly credible roleclaim. I'm happy to revise my beliefs given better evidence as the cycle(s) progress but either way, the vote analysis debate reads like sophistry to me, on a gut level. Whether it's good or bad sophistry remains to be seen but I don't like joining people in sophistry mudpits.

Sart claimed to be role-blocked on N1. Here, have a look: Hmm. @Vapor, Pyro, Vapor. Who do you suspect? What are your thoughts?

Fair, yes. I think we're generally on the same page. I was thinking more that if someone has used the Elim Kill, they clearly didn't use their night actions, whereas you were saying that if someone has night actions, they're less likely to Elim kill. I agree with that @Matrim's Dice I like my opsec So I can't speak for Gears but from my perspective, I'm largely referring to people who have already claimed publicly anyway. In some cases, we do know the ability, or it can be verified. Even if we don't know the ability, if they get lynched or killed, we can then go back and make sense of things. But just to make it clear, I don't advocate say, scanners just claiming in thread. Or mass roleclaims. That's kayana and there's only one kayana here and that's me @Ashbringer Fair enough. I think I'm just curious because it seemed to me to be a strange amount of info to know / assert as on D1. Edited to add: @Devotary of Spontaneity — good catch on Pyro, though he is at least trying to imply that he caught a disease with the sentence about transmission after claiming he gained an action.

[OOC] I did not say target pool. I said suspect pool. Why are you changing what I said? I maintain that even being able to circumstantially rule out one or two people from having been the Eliminator with the night kill could be helpful, especially if your ability use can be verified strongly or weakly in some way. Of course, weigh it against the issue of revealing for infosec reasons. I'm just saying if you can claim your target the Turn after, why not? I agree that people with night actions can't (why do you say less likely?) use the Elim kill. This is a direct corollary of the one action per Turn rule. It's listed in the rules. If you can verify a player's Night target, you can demonstrably prove they're not the Elim who used the Night Kill, even if they might be Evil too. Information builds up and lets us potentially catch people in lies. Why are you against this? Also yes—it's optional and will burn up my Day action slot. I see no need to use mine right now but will declare if/when I do. Unless I say otherwise, please regard my votes as being single votes. Literally the post above Dev's, thanks Edit: I think I need to make the point more strongly but I'm definitely for a voluntary, Turn after model. This is vulnerable to night kill interception of course. If people want to do it before the Turn, fine, but I don't want us to go to the extent of forcing people to declare on pain of the lynch. (Especially with Sart's role blocker on the loose.) Not saying you're saying that but I've been there before (esp. early SE) and it's unfun for everyone. It's unfun for people with abilities and threatens to lock regular players out of the discussion/game. I am not and would never advocate for this. What I do want is to circulate more information among the Village. I think it's an extra tool for use to facilitate lynch discussions and to build cases.

Apologies to the mods for the necro. I decided to post here rather than take up a digression within the Good News thread. I don't know how I missed the two posts here but good to see more FP people on the site! Sweet! I love Pels and the M205 Aquamarine looked so good. I regret not getting one is this a F nib? I just received a Parker 45 in decent condition, meaning I didn't have to do much to restore it Broad nib because that's my jam, and it writes so well I think the aerometric converter is borked, but I'm testing it later since I have cleaned out the ink stuck inside. Ultrasonic cleaners work sorcery indeed As requested, photos to come Edited: @Slowswift, here we go

[OOC] I don't have time for a more involved post right now but can in a couple of hours. Several small things that stood out for me: - Ash, on what basis did you claim to understand Pyro being quiet? - I'm going to come out and say that I contracted a disease this morning (er, start D2) and that I was told I know the complete rules pertaining to my disease. It doesn't exclude the idea of stages being separate diseases but I'd like to know why this theory gained traction. ( @Illwei, there you go.) - I would like to request all people whp have publicly admitted to diseases (yes, you, TJ, Matrim, Illwei, Pyro, myself) declare, if you can, your targets. I understand the need for secrecy but I also think that if we know who targeted whom, we can begin to create a suspect pool for the Eliminator with the night kill. I'll start. I can confirm what Illwei said because I contracted his disease this morning and his descriptions all check out. I can't use this except during Day Cycles. Sart, you claimed to be roleblocked. Who did you target? -I'll change my vote when I next get on. Edit: exeunt, ninjaed by Gears

In a couple of hours, aye Need to get something done. Will @!

Parker 45 aerometric. Converter seems to be broken and leaking but I can replace that, no problem, and after a round or two of cleaning, it's writing as good as new

Sorry folks. Life has been not-good - a bit awful actually - so I'm going to drop the quotation weirdness as it's just another stressor on top of other unhappy stuff. What I said about aiming for minimally 1-2 posts still stands. I'll just do whatever and RP sometimes I guess. I'm sorry about the mess. Gonna go rest after this and try to reset myself. Will try to be better and contribute more tomorrow.

I should think that you Jedi would have more respect for the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

A vintage pen I've been waiting for finally arrived in the post! Going to check if it needs any tuning up once I'm done with work for the day.