Jump to content

Kasimir

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8611

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    40

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Kasimir

  1. Kasimir
    Put me down next to you, Sarge. I guess my ancestors would have a fit if I defected so fast to placing a vote for our ex-colonial masters
  2. Kasimir
    Well, you'd be partly at the mercy of what type of philosophy interests you. Ethics? Aesthetics? (The conversations Hoid has can, in part, be translated into a discourse about whether works of art possess intrinsic value, and if so, what sort of account of these values we can give.) Political philosophy? For obvious reasons, the lighteyes/darkeyes caste system is complex and, one might argue, rather unjust. But what then is justice? How can we problematise such systems? Or perhaps you're more a fan of metaphysics, in which case Platonic forms and their use in Sanderson's books might be a more appealing theme. What about epistemology? What are good ways of arriving at knowledge? How should knowledge be deployed? Should knowledge be controlled, as it clearly was in Rashek's Final Empire? Is knowledge dangerous? ^ Many, many, many possibilities. Edit: To be fair, I should note that I don't tend to read Sanderson's works philosophically, as I read them to switch off from uni stuff, so these are more tentative suggestions at best.
  3. Kasimir
    For the record, a classmate of mine once took an advanced science and metaphysics exam in which there was only one question, and it was this: "What is the world made of?" After spending the first minute or so swearing quietly at the prof, my friend took up his pen and wrote, "Ideally, of whiskey and chocolate, but..." He got an A.
  4. Kasimir
    Well, first, it depends on whether you want to plump for a phenomenological conception of the world, a phenomenal conception of the world, a semantic conception of the world, a fundamental realist conception of the world, and/or an intersubjective conception of the world. To do that, we need to get clear on this implied mind/body distinction, for if experience is itself nothing more than instantiations of particular states in the brain, then it implies that these states must be triggered by external stimuli. These stimuli cause groups of ordered experiences "qualia packets", if you will, that we will refer to as, respectively, "green experiences", "blue experiences", and so on. But there's another complication, for this already presumes that you assume that the relationship between the world and our minds is one of constitution, rather than, perhaps, of representation, for instance. And even then, we need to consider if it is, in fact, neither... EDIT: In clearer terms, any discourse about the relationship between the world and our minds must take into account three separate axes: SEMANTIC, EPISTEMOLOGICAL, and METAPHYSICAL. If we do not distinguish between them and get clear on what kind of relationship we are interested in, philosophical discussion on this issue tends to flounder.
  5. Kasimir
    I can get behind that, but I'm also allowed to root for our ex-colonial enemies masters Go UK!
  6. Kasimir
    Actually, you're a King's Tester--one of the guys who makes Mr T. take the tests he has to, before determining what he's allowed to do for the day. (In Words of Radiance.) Congratulations, you have more power than a king!
  7. Kasimir
  8. Kasimir
    Should be that it becomes a positively-charged ion, no? At least that's what we claimed at O levels, sorry [The idea being that by losing a negative charge, the atom, which initially has no net negative/positive charge, now becomes more strongly positively-charged than negative.]
  9. Kasimir
    Sorry darlings; in the words of my bro Wyrm: the Dula ship. We do not get shipped Okay, Kas going silent. Game on.
  10. Kasimir
    Sorry, M'Hael. As the dead/alive, departed player, I really just have to say this: Can people please kindly stop it with the Kasrippmar or Kasripple or whatever and just address Ripple as Ripple? Stop namesmashing me, darnit. Wyrmimir and Kashero was bad enough, good grief! I know who started it, and rest assured I will be causing him a great deal of grief over it. Thank you! #irritatedKasisirritated
  11. Kasimir
    Cap, a gentleman doesn't kiss and tell Sorry guys, I was gonna post a Spartacus meme until Cap here kind of stole my thunder
  12. Kasimir
    I've been getting a number of requests in PMs to share my suspicions with people. While I think that's okay, if a little odd, I would like to repeat that suspicions should be put in the thread. Not just in PMs. What happens if you die? Your suspicions, your way of voicing them, is lost. (Don't forget C&P from PMs is disallowed (unless Wyrm rules otherwise; this is a general SE rule, but can be overriden by the GM.)) So, imagine if you're unlucky and you just expressed your suspicions to a Traitor. Perfect. They don't ever have to share your suspicions with the thread, much less to properly represent them. And the Crew as a whole loses the benefit of your voice, and your perspective. Now, let's think of a better scenario; you're talking to a Crew member. But they don't quite understand some of what you're saying, and they don't really convey it well. And this has happened. Recall what happened in LG12 when the Elantrians' opinions were misconveyed by a Good-aligned Messenger (Seon Holder was the name of the role; Elantrians could not post in the thread and their words had to be carried by PM.) We ended up completely going down a wrong hole and lynching an innocent instead of the Cultist (Eliminator) who was up for lynching. And that's exactly my point: why leave your suspicions up to the vicissitudes of fate and the verbal skill of your interlocuter? Why not just put it in the thread so everyone can hear it directly from you? Why resort to a game of Chinese Whispers? So, let me tell you a story, guys. It's a great story; one of friendship and broness. Oh, and betrayals. It's a good story, a bit funny, just a bit sad. There was this guy called Kasimir, though on Roshar, his name was Kasimar. He was a cool guy, as far as I know. Had a great sense of humour. As it turned out, he was a Seeker (could discover factions; in the game, referred to as a Voidbringer). He cracked a lot of jokes with his bro Wyrm and all was well. One day, a whole bunch of people killed him. But it was okay. Because Kasimar was a Voidbringer, which meant he was too rusting stubborn to die and had 1337 PM powers while he was dying. With one more day left to live, he called out to his bro Wyrm with his dying breath and told him all his suspicions and findings. And then he died. Only to discover that his bro Wyrm was, in fact, a traitor: had, in fact, pushed for his death, and now, all that information was in the hands of a traitor who was planning to bring down Kasimar's faction. THE END. And this, kids, is how I met my forum-bro Wyrm why I will never feel comfortable with the idea of confiding suspicions just in PMs. And I am in fact going to refine my suspicions now, post 'em, add an extra thought on the Kandra, then get back to what I'm being paid to do. Edit: Spelled 'thought' as 'through'. Edit 2: Kas's New Thoughts On The Kandra: Kas's Current Suspicions/Questions:
  13. Kasimir
    I'd say my local accent comes through more in terms of intonation, rather than in pronounciation. Oh, right, let me be more organised. So, for English, I used to have a very local accent, but then I used to mimic my English teacher for a bundle of laughs in his class, and somewhere down the line, my regular accent started to shift because of that habit, and now I get asked by people where I come from (I think a few classmates thought I was from New Zealand at one point?). I wouldn't say my accent is really identifiable as coming from somewhere: it's just that in my local context, everyone knows it just doesn't sound local. Intonation-wise, I've largely retained a stronger local accent when speaking German. Don't ask me why. My German teacher once called me up and told me that my Aussprache was pretty rusting solid, but that she had no idea why my intonation was so clunky/horrible. I especially don't seem to be able to inflect my sentences much, so whether I ask questions or make statements, my intonation patterns kind of sound the same. :/
  14. Kasimir
    Sonder’d meant to catch some sleep, but he’d soon been blearily hauled out of his bunk when the alarms went off. He’d heard that they’d arrested someone and the Captain’d ordered her put in the brig while they decided what to do about her, but he’d been going off an exhausting shift then, and hadn’t paid the matter much heed. How much changed in the span of a few hours. First, the arrested crewmember—he didn’t know her, she hadn’t been with engineering, at least—ended up having been murdered in her cell, which didn’t make Sonder feel all that much better about this ship, much less this contract, which was supposed to run for at least a sixth month stint, with the possibility of an extension to a year. He sipped at his cooling coffee and tried to repress a shudder. Falcio’d seen that, he was certain. Second, the arrested crewmember’d turned out to have been a kandra. The traitors, whoever they were, had known. They’d ripped out her spikes and killed her with acid, one of the few known ways of killing a kandra. Second’d come into the engine room with a gigantic scowl and picked one or two people and sent them to pull up the surveillance camera monitoring the brig for the security personnel. They returned later, chastened, only to be yelled at by Second when he found out that the recordings had been deleted, or the cameras had been tampered with, or something. Sonder didn’t envy them. He knew what it was like when Second hated you. How did they even get acid, on board this ship? They probably had some chemical supplies, but to do that… He shook his head wearily. That wasn’t his purview. Security on the vessel was supposed to be handled—or mishandled—by the Head of Security, the Chief Mate, and goodness only knew who else, however the Heron Mining Corporation wanted this ship organised. It certainly wasn’t his job. But that thought still wasn’t comforting. Was this what Chief Arnkell’d meant, when he said that working corporate was a whole different thing from signing on with a merchant ship? His respect for the man increased drastically. Sonder was already feeling vastly lost in the complex world of the Shardship; the barely-veiled hostility of his superior officer wasn’t at all helping. And of course, that meant that when the Third in charge of the comm systems, Falcio’d needed someone to help him, Sonder’d been volunteered by Second; an amused, proto-malicious glint in his eye. “Don’t know what Cap’s thinking,” Falcio rumbled. He didn’t seem discomfited by the fact that Second’d chosen to furnish him only with a beleaguered Fourth Engineer, rather than any of the juniors or cadets he had lying around. He shook his head as he tinkered with the offending server. The others looked somewhat taken aback by the statement. “Monkeying with the ship’s systems by Hemalurgically inserting a separate intelligence into it’s asking for trouble. What happens if it goes rogue, eh?” “Then we shut it down,” ventured one of the juniors. Falcio rolled his eyes and swatted ineffectually at him with a large hand. “Yeah, and how’re we gonna do that, you think? There’s an access door to get to the hardware. It’s computerised. You think the HI can’t access it and lock it off? HI controls the airlocks, the pressure systems, oxygen systems…” he counted them all off on his fingers. “Be suicidal to try and take it down. It’s a violation of all safety procedures we know of. An HI gone rogue could kill us all.” Probably didn’t help Falcio’s mood that Second’d been chewing his arse about fixing the comms issue, Sonder thought. With the sudden influx of emails and personal messages being sent come the start of the night shift, some of the ship’s comm systems had abruptly failed. To make matters worse, a good amount of that flood had come in the form of spam emails. That was about the point when he’d been dragged out of his bunk, told to report to the engine room, and then informed by Second that he was going to pull some overtime helping Third get things normal again. Sonder shook his head. At least no more of the crew were reporting having received the spam emails, so with the spam filters reconfigured, all they needed to do was make sure the systems were green again. The comm section was unusually empty. Sonder’d heard most of them had been tapped to go and work on the Hemalurgic systems instead, managing the Captain’s new insertion of the dead crew member into the ship’s systems. “Could shut it down from the bridge,” another junior said, hesitantly. “Cap’s got the override, doesn’t he?” Darkly, Falcio said, “Won’t do him any good if he’s dead, will it?” Instantly, the mood in the room changed; grew darker, grimmer. Sonder found himself looking up from his work. “Uh, Third?” “It’s da Gama, Kessligh,” Falcio corrected. “And what?” “Well, uh, I was thinking, that…well, it sounds awfully like you think Cap’s going to die,” Sonder stammered. Falcio rolled his eyes. “Listen up, you lot,” he said, glancing away from Sonder to the rest of the motley group he’d been saddled with. “Yeah, it’s pretty storming obvious that there’s a bunch of people here trying to sabotage what they’re doing, and you bet they’d be after the Captain, because Cap’s got eyes in the back of his head, and long as he’s alive, he’ll stop them from taking over the ship and mining operations. And if Cap’s dead, control passes down the deck to the Mate, and so on—leaving all of us out of the loop. But that doesn’t help if the Mate’s not going to get to the Bridge. So there’s nothing we can do about that storming thing, got it? “But then…” “I think,” Falcio said, thunderously, “We have systems that need checking. Get back to it!” Sonder nodded and fell silent. It was, he thought, going to be a very long night. - OOC: Not much useful stuff from me tonight. Got an email from my supervisor indicating he wants the proofs yesterday and since he's paying me and y'all are not, I'm gonna drop down one or two activity levels while I handle it
  15. Kasimir
    Kipper: In response to your question from last cycle, the truth is that I'm not strongly committed to either. I think either path is/was a distinct possibility, and allowing the Eliminators control for information works under specific kinds of circumstances--so as I mentioned, we're both agreed that we're better off pursuing genuine suspicion, if it exists. I leave it to your imagination as to whether Day 1 suspicions ought to be classified as 'genuine' or 'particularly helpful'. My personal view is that we would have to be very, very lucky to have a preferable case of genuine suspicion on Day 1. The reason why I'm not strongly committed to either is that I think they have their own possibilities and pitfalls. The most obvious pitfall is that Plan Allow Action doesn't work as good when articulated (since it allows Eliminator control, but even then, still tells you something about where they want you to look.) In addition, the bigger issue is that for either strategy, IMO, you need Crew cooperation, or either case backfires. Because if the entire Crew is on board with the usual lynch strategy, then obviously anyone who ties the vote is going to be seen as a Traitor/working counter to the Crew's purposes. And vice versa. In cases of strategy/methodology, I prefer to make recommendations and to open possibilities for the Crew, rather than telling people what to do. We could argue about whether it works. I could appeal to the fact Meta has used this on occasion, but might get accused of argumentum ad Meta. (Although I should note that appeal to authority tends to be misidentified as a fallacy by people since even the strictest logician accepts that we should defer to epistemic authority.) My bottom line, I would say, is that I see reasoning in an Elimination game as being fundamentally Bayesian. Or, as my favourite image puts it: I won't explain it unless someone actually wants me to go into Bayesian epistemology, this is just my favourite bit about how we react to evidence and I like talking about it everywhere [Edit: My thesis used to be on this before, alas, it had to depart for other waters and studying other types of inference/reasoning practices.] My point then is that while it would be irrational to reject 'genuine suspicion'/stronger evidence, I don't think we have that on Day 1 an awful lot. And if we do not, then, have overriding evidence, then our starting point actually is not significant. What matters is: A. evidence collection, B. updating/revising our beliefs appropriately in response to evidence. And of course, C. promoting lots of discussion so we can facilitate evidence collection, using the evidence from the lynch and the night kill, etcetera. So really, that's my perspective, at the end of it. I don't prefer either because I really don't see one method as being intrinsically better than another. (For goodness' sake, if I thought Allowing Control was obviously better, then the question naturally arises as to why I've never promoted it in past games.) My answer to Eliminator mind games, and cases of I Know You Know has, similarly, always been the same: we can deal with them by collecting evidence and updating our beliefs. Put in a non-abstract way, if evidence doesn't support a layer, the layer likely doesn't exist. That's the best we all have to go on, and frankly, it's rather good. Edit 2: Sorry, Kipper, realised I wasn't direct enough in addressing your question--Upshot: yes, it's easy to discuss without taking a position. But you'd have grounds to call me on it if I refused to take a position on everything. At this point, I do think both are equally fair as options, and that there is no reason to prefer either. But failing to take a position on this tactical issue doesn't mean I don't have any principled positions, even if I'm playing to Urbain Paranoia right now Be back later after my papers with more paranoia!
  16. Kasimir
    At special request from the GM: Cap Wyrm his Honour, I present you the meme I was originally going to use, before I desisted out of respect for the sensibilities of some of our players: Also he's British so if you want to complain about lese majeste, take it up with him, I'm just an ex-colonial subject Edit: Srs!Kas has gone bye-bye at this time. Will contribute properly after I've woken up.
  17. Kasimir
  18. Kasimir
    Kyrus Heron #3: A Time of Spires Action Three
  19. Kasimir
    More disagreement. 1. Wait, Kas, what did you just say about the HI? I have explained why I do not think the assumption that the HI is on our team is necessarily one we should take uncritically. Unfortunately, dismissing a line of reasoning that one does not favour as 'absurd' is not particularly helpful as a rhetorical strategy, let alone on the level of the laws of reason. But none of that's the point. Simply put, this doesn't even matter. My point about it being an assumption that we can even trust the HI to begin with goes out to the non-Hemalurgists, simply because if there are loyal Hemalurgists, then they can safely ignore what I've said and decide to communicate with the HI or not, based on the considerations already raised. But it matters to us because it is dangerous to treat Deathclutch the way we would a confirmed Villager, and I thank Wyrm for his indirect but timely reminder why this is so. In other words, apply caution and a pinch of salt; the same way we would regard any other player who we have some but not indefeasible reason to trust. And really, that's how we should be playing SE anyway: trust, but never trust 100%. Trust, but verify. Not to mention that if we have some reason to think Deathclutch might be on our side, that's kind of more than we have for most players, assuming that everyone, as I do, starts with a position of default suspicion towards everyone else. tldr; Paranoid!Kas is paranoid. And really, as Wyrm pointed out, it's possible to kill the HI... 2. Vote shenanigans This discussion has come up before in previous games. My answer: is that really, immediately, prima facie, ipso facto, pro tanto a bad thing? Because I really doubt that. Alright. So vote shenanigans happen. But that's information too. If our own Feruchemists don't monkey with votes, then we effectively obtain confirmation for what is, up to this point, merely 'informed' speculation that Team Evil has Feruchemists. We might want to look at the people they've tied the vote for; we might want to interrogate them further. If we have a kandra, this gives them a good place to start scans. And if we find out they're innocent? Then it tells us too about how the Eliminators are playing this game. It allows us to see who is pushed overly-hard for those people being suspicious: it gives us leads. These leads could be wrong, but you don't play an Elimination game without barking up a few wrong trees engines to begin with. If they kill someone who's confirmed loyal? Once again, we know they have Feruchemists, and we can avoid that in future. We look at who that loyal person has been interacting with. We look at what that person's been saying. It still gives us a place to start, just as opting to lynch someone in discussion gives us a place to start. Now, the one important caveat is that we need to decide which path we're going down. Because if we don't, we're just going to wind up with a confused mess. I am not particularly committed to either option; but I do find it silly to immediately dismiss the possibility of gaining information from allowing vote shenanigans.
  20. Kasimir
    Disagree. Alignment is too easy; any Eliminator could just as well claim that they were a kandra, since by process of elimination, anyone who is not on their team is on Team Crew, so as to speak. I would personally only be more convinced if a kandra scanned me again the next night and told me my role. Until then, they get a preliminary, cautious sort of trust. Granted, even that is not proof of their alignment. But I think for that, we'd have to fall back on their actions--the same way we figure out any person is likely not an Eliminator. Burnt: Your simple vote count is wrong. Unless I'm misreading it, you're saying Clanky voted for me, when I in fact cast a vote for him. Elbereth: Actually, I beg to differ, for two main reasons. First, I've checked with Wyrm. He's not firmly set on whether or not we need to include him with PMs, and frankly if you're just spamming PMs for the sake of doing so and generating cover, then I really doubt Wyrm needs to be in on each and every one of them. Second, to be very honest, I think there will be heavy PM use anyway, regardless of what I've just said. We've got many players here who love to take advantage of PMs, and I'd bet anything that they'd go wild when the Night comes. (In fact, I wouldn't put it past Wilson or Maili or Kipper to have a PM with every single player in this game.) Still, your concern for the sanity of the GM is awesome, and you're right Biggoron: It's not important. It was a mechanic from a previous game that allowed the player to 'take down' another player with him when he died. Hence my horror when he informed me of both his role and his target. (Keep in mind I was not the only person he told that to, and that another person eventually just dumped all the information into the thread upon death.) PK, Elbereth: I disagree again. 1. He is not our guaranteed ally. The probability that Wyrm would give us zero loyal Hemalurgists is a small one, but it exists. As I said, I was in the spec doc in the previous playthrough and he was toying with the idea. It doesn't say anything about whether or not he did do it, but the probability is non-zero: it is a possibility. Whether or not it is the case can only be discovered later on. Furthermore, recall Wyrm's clarification that he didn't plan the role to be treated as a confirmed Good player. It's not impossible that he would decide to throw further spanners into any attempts by us to do so. 2. Why should we tell our alignment suspicions to the HI? Guys, we're in an Elimination game. We should be telling each other that. What's the point of only telling the HI? What if you die and the HI turns and simply manipulates what you say to tell the thread something completely different? My view is that alignment suspicions should always be reported to the thread. That way, if you die, your suspicions do not die with you, especially if you're on to something. The HI can get his own information from the thread, just like any of us. Even if the HI isn't malicious, he's still human fallible. He can misrepresent, by complete accident, what you are thinking. Why leave that risk open? I feel that we should simply put it in the thread so everyone can get it direct from the horse's mouth. (Inb4 Blackfoot.)
  21. Kasimir
    Funny thing is, in a game with so many new players mixed in with regulars, you'd think it a bit of an unwarranted assumption that we sharr the same norms of play... There are many new players, some of whom have played Mafia/ToS in their free time regularly. I do not know what norms, 'conventions' and standard practices govern their communities. All I can speak from is my experiences playing here, and in the borrowed words of Samuel L. Jackson: "I have had it with these [censored] roleclaims in these [censored] PMs!" In the last game I played through to finish here, a role with a hostage revealed to me in a PM on Day Two. That was completely unnecessary, and if I'd been Evil, could've netted my team a double kill. Sadly, unjudicious reveals and the psychological tendency to trust unwisely continues to be a feature of these games. If it's 'convention' for you, then good for you and the people you play with. But since slips do happen here, can happen and will happen, you bet I'll keep putting reminders, no matter what anyone else thinks/says.
  22. Kasimir
    Several things to add: 1. Understood, Adavantos. I agree that we're just offering advisories to the Hemalurgists; I just wanted to make sure that we didn't get too bogged down in discussion on this one point because the last thing we need is this issue being blown out of proportion when we still have a little over 24 hours left, and it would be unfortunate if we all stalled here. 2. All Hemalurgists, this is hopefully the last I will say on the issue. While you are hopefully considering your options, I want to warn to wait for Word of Wyrm and to factor that into consideration. I've spoken to Wyrm and he's considering allowing the HI to play under the assumption they will eventually swap to Team Eliminator; he'll get back to us later. If that is the case, I would shift towards agreeing more with Adavantos. So please check on what Wyrm says! 3. Remember Wyrm's a troll? I take back my words on trusting Deathclutch. Consider small, non-zero probability that there are no loyal Hemalurgists to begin with. (He did consider that during Playthrough 1, so...) 4. I don't want to get mired too much in the lynch-or-no-lynch issue because as people have rightly pointed out, it's a distraction. But I do want to remind everyone that there's a very good reason why we ought to be proactive and aggressive on this: we're on a timer. Let us assume that we do in fact have Loyal Hemalurgists, and that Deathclutch is temporarily on our side. Model it however you like; unless Deathclutch is going to desist from scanning roles and leave it all up to our Kandra (if we have any), a major issue we're going to face is that as the timer (likely; it's possible we're exceedingly lucky and none of our Hemalurgists get hit at all) runs out, or if Deathclutch chooses to play to his long-term win condition (if Wyrm permits this), then the more rounds we take to root out the Traitors, the more information he gleans. And that information on roles--which is exactly what Traitors would like, as it enables them to target strategically--all goes over to them, the moment our last Hemalurgist falls. While it would not exactly be game-shattering, I believe it would be a significant setback for us, and would prefer to try to take down a few of the Traitors before they get access to that information. 5. Last, while I have no fixed opinion yet on most players (partly because I'm very paranoid, and I've even relaxed my certainty on Deathclutch, now that I've been reminded of the Zero-Loyal-Hemalurgist possibility), I'd like to ask Clanky what his opinions are. I've noticed that you've spent a few posts poking at Adavantos's points, but you've always seemed to shy from driving the nail home: do you, or do you not think he is suspicious? (Or, assuming you begin, as I do, by considering everyone suspicious--do you then think there is something especially problematic about him that demand attention?) Edit: Araris, I would like to hear more from you as well; Stink, I would like to know how "he has a reputation of something" pushes you to vote for Maili.
  23. Kasimir
    Also, as a quick clarification: I'm not a fan of anyone else reporting to Deathclutch besides the Hemalurgists, and I would admit that I am a bit unsure about the wisdom of Plan: Have the Hemalurgists Report To The HI until we get some Word of Wyrm on the matter. As I see it, you can't take back anything you've already said; there's no sense in forcing the issue now, and the risks greatly grow with giving the HI access to some of the more meaty roles. And since I forgot: Orlok. Sorry man, didn't know my timing was so bad. Must've been storing luck
  24. Kasimir
    Okay. Let's get some things clear: 1. Is the HI deciding that the odds of his turning are so high that he might as well start out playing for the Eliminators and sod the Ship entirely against Fair Play? Unpopular But Sad Answer: No. No, it is not. Hear me out here: I GMed an infamous disaster of a game known as MR7, which had a similar relevant issue pop up. To give a brief sketch of the situation for people who don't know what happened, I had a mechanic which allowed one player from each of the three main Factions to swap Faction and win condition each cycle. It just so happened that Joe was transferred from the Heritage Faction to the Moderation Faction. Now, Joe had pre-arranged with his Faction that they would immediately bribe him back as soon as the next round came along. So as far as Joe was concerned, the probability that he would remain in Moderation come the next cycle was effectively zero, or as close to zero as you could possibly get. From this certainty, he decided that despite his current win con indicating he had to play for Moderation, he would not help them or disclose any information. This became a big deal and things got very tense in the doc for a while as Moderation did not take Joe's recalcitrance well at all. As the GM, I stepped in and ruled that players needed to play to their immediate win conditions. The knowledge that his team would bribe him back was insufficient to justify Joe's playing as though he was still a member of Heritage: he was not. The Fair Play rules do not say anything about this kind of meta-gaming. I consider that form of meta-gaming to be cheating, and discussed the incident with the then-impartial mod, Gamma. Gamma chose to back up my ruling, as I was the GM and the Fair Play rules grant (to a certain extent) priority to how a GM chooses to enforce the rules in a game. (For the record, it took nearly five cycles before Joe's team actually took him back. Which just goes to show that his certainty was, in any case, misplaced, and he would certainly have lacked justification for trying to actively sabotage Moderation.) The Upshot: Fair Play does not say anything about whether the HI can or cannot play that way. We would need Word of Wyrm, which I hope to receive. And I should note that even the Word of the GM can only do so much: if players refuse to play to their win conditions or interpret them in exotic ways, there's really only so much you can do. See: MR7. 2. Is it problematic for the HI to play as though he were an Eliminator, starting immediately? As a player, my personal opinion is that it is. I consider it a category mistake to examine the potential (no matter how high) for one's win con to change, and to play with the long view of victory in mind rather than their immediate win condition. I want to get this clear, because I noticed that Adavantos was equivocating between two subtly different cases: A. You are a Citizen of Arelon (Villager). You have no powers, but the Gyorn has converted you. Furthermore, the Gyorn can appoint one Convert to be his Odiv, which would change your win condition from Village to Shu-Dereth. There are two other converts; you know your chances of switching teams are therefore currently 1/3. The claim I argue for is that until the PM from the GM comes, informing you that you are now the Odiv and that your win con has changed, it is ethically problematic, or at least pragmatically so, for a player to hedge their bets by playing in a way that sabotages the Village or by not playing as they normally would if they were a citizen. B. You are a Citizen of Arelon and a Convert. You have received the PM from the GM informing you that you are now the Odiv. There is nothing wrong with sabotaging the Village. A probability of conversion is built into the role. That does not entail that the role itself demands that a player hedge their bets, or play in a way that compromises their current faction in order to be better off if/when a switch comes. The example used was of a case where the conversion itself has happened. But the high probability of a conversion does not always justify such actions (this is the minimal claim I made by pointing out the example of Joe), and the stronger claim I desire to make is that such actions are always unjustified. However, I am just a player. My interpretation of the Fair Play rules is my own. While Kipper shares my view, it is just as clear that Adavantos does not. Barring Word of Wyrm, we are left, furthermore, in an uneasy position as we do not know what set of norms Deathclutch endorses. The problem therefore remains. 3. Have players gone against their win con before? This is a strictly empirical question. Yes, they have. But as far as I know, this has always been done after consulting the GM (and at times, the impartial mod as well.) Gamma went against his win con as a Villager by tacitly helping the Eliminator team in LG4 (I believe we would call this being an accomplice/aiding and abetting, in modern parlance) and later was transferred to the Eliminator team, courtesy of a ruling from Winter in MR6. The Upshot: Wyrm's perspective on this issue matters. He is our Captain, and the Captain of the ship is judge, jury, executioner, priest, and god knows what else. He is vast, he contains multitudes, etcetera. Oh, and he's a window, apparently. 4. Can the Eliminators trace the Hemalurgists contacting the HI from looking at player activity? I would actually argue that it is more complicated to do so, particularly when a number of recurring players like to send PMs to each other, and especially when you have multiple 17S tabs open at the same time. Doing so tends to grant an inconsistent result for anyone watching. In fact, though, if this is such a concern, then let's simply stipulate that everyone should leave a tab with the messenger open, so as to further muddy the waters for the Eliminators. Let us all send scores of PMs to muddy the waters. Let Deathclutch switch on his PM email notifications so he can know who the Hemalurgists are, without having to reply to them and acknowledge them, and give away their identity. If you're so concerned, there are many precautions that can be taken, and we can take them since you've brought up the possibility of the Eliminators doing such. Storms, he can even open his PM at pretty weird hours rather than immediately answering PM messages. (This, I note, also ignores timezone lag issues. If the Eliminators want to waste their time trying to work out who is doing what with the PMs, I invite them to do so. If they want to write a program to do it, go ahead. I'd much rather they waste their time sorting out signals from the noise than trying to think of ways to kill us.) 5. Can Deathclutch be trusted? I don't know. At the end of the day, this game boils down very much to trust and the honour system, like it or not. We have no guarantee he won't see things the way Adavantos does. We have no guarantee that he will play to his current win con; neither do we have any guarantee that we will get a positive ruling from Wyrm--even less do we have a guarantee that Deathclutch will abide by that ruling! My players certainly didn't always do that. Fortunately or otherwise, SE is tightly-bound to the honour system. We trust that the recurring players will not tell each other their roles, or communicate during an SE game with no PMs. (I myself regularly correspond with Wyrm, Maili and Wilson among others--it's only the honour system that 'guarantees' that Maili and myself or Wilson and myself have not been surreptitiously relaying information to each other behind the scenes in our regular non-game interactions.) We trust that players who claim to be inactive because of being busy in real life really are busy rather than Eliminators trying to get a free pass. And quite frankly, I think there are some things it's best to stick to the Honour System with. I think that the day we start treating all these utterances and acts as suspicious is the day that SE drastically changes, and perhaps not the better. The day a player actively breaks this robust honour system will be gamechanging. Unfortunately for us. Does this suggest to trust Deathclutch? I don't know. One could just as easily argue that trusting a player not to meta-game in the way Adavantos favours is a different kettle of fish from trusting a player not to abuse the meta-game by feigning RL issues and going inactive to avoid detection. I myself do not consider that line of argument appealing. 6. Does this matter? Sadly, no, so can we all move on and talk about other things? I think we've discussed the issue to death, and unless it just so happens that all of us are the Hemalurgists, then this is purely an academic discussion. Our dissension, like it or not, has sown confusion: it is in the hands of the Hemalurgists to decide whether they would favour my arguments or Adavantos's. At the end of the day, the choice is theirs, and there's nothing more to be said about it.
  25. Kasimir
    That's a fair question, Arraenae. Here's my answer: I signed up to play this game because I thought it would be fun, and so a bit of mischief by posting pictures appealed to me, particularly in response to Wyrm. I also signed up because I liked the setting: I mean, spaceship, right? Awesome! So really, the main thing is that I don't regard the only function of posting to be always directed towards putting down analysis to help everyone find the Traitors. Sure, that's our goal, and I'm always ready to do my bit, but I don't see why that precludes having fun, whether with a bit of mild trolling/mischief or with RP, really. (And I am having fun RPing! Even if everyone else is really sick of The Adventures of Sonder The Doormat! ) To be fair, I will grant it's a bit of a switch from Srs!Bsns!Kas, so a further question might be asked about why I'm not being as aggressive as I usually am. Well, I've been trying to get a bit of distance and perspective when playing SE to endorse the principle [Maxifun]: Maximising the most fun for the most number of people! To go with that, I have been trying to change my playstyle since I got called out for excessive aggression in LG12 Being at the receiving end of it isn't fun, and that just increases my desire to play in a way that is more friendly, ethically okay and encourages fun. [No worries, if this experiment doesn't work out, 'No Prisoners'!Kas is coming right back ] - I'm just going to echo what Adavantos said about sharing roles. Cease and desist! (I have not yet formulated my position on the Hemalurgists visiting the HI, and I suspect I will need to go through the arguments from the first round of this game in order to better weigh the issues.) This one goes to everyone else who's not the special case of a Hemalurgist approaching the HI. Don't do it! It doesn't matter if you're a regular or you have a role, we don't want to make it easier for an Eliminator to figure out who they ought to be taking down and who they oughtn't, alright? This doesn't just cover in-thread, it covers PM safety. Practice safe PM use, people! Role reveals even over PMs can come back to haunt you later. tldr; loose lips sink ships, plus, everyone on this ship has a part to play, if you have no role, then it's all the more important you vote, your vote is your voice and your power, etcetera. Alas, at this point, I am going to have to do a poke vote. Sonder, what do you have to say for yourself? More seriously: Orlok, I'd like to know your views on what's going on so far. Oh, and Maili--so, I noticed you commented you shared Wilson's views on Bridge Boy. What about on Alv? My personal take is that I think it a bit of a stretch to read heavy suspicion into Alv's joke (to be fair, I did spend my entry into this game messing around myself), but for obvious reasons (Urbain Paranoia!), I shan't bring myself to trust anyone just yet. Except Deathclutch, since at this point, he's the only confirmed Loyalist. I do have a final thought though. Is there anything wrong with asking the HI now to reveal the number of Hemalurgists, if Plan Reveal H. to HI is a go? My immediate impression is that it really doesn't hurt giving us a countdown as to when Clutch is gonna turn on us. (After all, we just have to check the dead for the number of dead Hemalurgists!) On the other hand, it's not super helpful to the Eliminators if they don't know who the Hemalurgists are (and obviously, that's information that should be kept secret.) Because the moment our last Hemalurgist dies, Clutch gets added to their doc anyway. So I don't actually see all of us knowing the number of Hemalurgists as something that helps the Eliminators--or at least it helps us far more than it helps them, since it's information they would have eventually received anyway. I should also add that while I trust the HI for now, I'm against trying to make the HI a nexus of information, for the obvious reason that if he goes over, so does all that delicious intel. But my impression is that that much has also been previously said.
×
×
  • Create New...