Kasimir

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to repeat myself one more time: 1. This is barely an hour into the game. Two tops. I don’t remotely think anyone would get an obvV this early though I really think you should know better since you know my meta. 2. Telling people they're not appearing obvV in the first two hours is kind of rich. This is an understatement. 3. As I've pointed out, I've already offered two sets of player read thoughts. Whatever you feel about my direct and belligerent pushback against Neil, it's objectively unfair to say I'm not putting in my usual work as I would contend I'm doing about as much as anyone present this far. In that regard, it's also clear misrepresentation to say I have decided I don't need to make my alignment clear. 4. I stand by what I say on not giving a f if I'm exed. I just am going to keep pointing out absurdities when I see it. 5. I don’t think it’s about who should do more. I've objectively done about as much as anyone present. I also stand by the fact that I don't feel it is in any way a good use of time or constructive to respond to a demand to obvV for Neil, given he was insisting deep into what was probably one of my more characteristically obvV games that...I wasn't readable. I can’t guarantee I'm not salty as hell about it but it's influencing my view of how much I should specifically care to be readable for him, as compared to say, the Village. Why am I not surprised? Which game was this? Edit: I suppose I should add that in general I think demands to be readable are a distraction anyway. As a Villager I don't care about being read as Village and that never informs my approach to the game. I just care about finding Elims. Everything else will take care of itself when you just focus on the hunt.

Bruh. While I'm deliberately being annoyingly and pushing against you, I've also offered two immediate reads or at least player thoughts. Asking me why I don't do it is kind of weird because yes I'm being loudly and grumpily belligerent but I'm also playing the game the normal way. I don’t see why you are acting as if I'm not giving you anything to work with here Edited: I'd add that implying I'm saying you can't put pressure is a straw man. I'm pointing out, and I don't feel you have a convincing answer for this, that you in particular have a major issue of being unable to recognise V behaviour when it comes to me so I don't see why I should especially put in effort for you instead of doing what comes normally. What about

Because I decided I should probably be a bit nicer given that he's going to enjoy being blatantly wrong later on, mostly. Something something principle of charity although I absolutely resent being demanded to obvV when it's clear the player in question couldn't see V me if I TEed him ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If you do not want to see something, no amount of it will make it be seen. This is pretty much the state of the world in 2023-2024. I dunno bruh but could I interest you in some memes? Or a bet for the road? What about a bet on how I'll flip?

Also calling BS on this. Anyone not Raven who plays regularly will point out I am very good at making my alignment known so telling me I'm deflecting by directly refusing you is one hell of a slope

>> Every day we stray further from God I don't care to Exe me if you want. @neil the beguiled And maybe read this while you're at it. I haven't assigned you a read, period.

Short answer: Insider is not in the doc. I think that’s what all your strategising assumes. ...Tempted to V lean but Archer rules derps regardless of alignment so it's a wash.

Edited to add: I suppose to sharpen the point: I don't presume a V!you world. You are presuming a V!you world by asking me to obv!V. If you are E, that's BS because you know my alignment. I'm pointing out that taking your presumption at face value, I don’t see why I should obv!V for you because from what I can tell, you can't recognise V me even when it was blatantly obvious — so again, why should I spend my time that way?

If you're Elim, then it's an insincere question so why bother engaging with that world? In E!you world whether or not I am obv!V doesn't matter because you have an agenda to push. The bigger point is, why should I waste my time if it's clear you won't see it anyway? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I prefer zenpuppy In theory We'll leave aside the fact you screwed it over so badly we got collectively punished in AG19

Why should I if you’ve made it clear you can't recognise V!me when you see him? Edited to add: V lean Drake. Ice-thin.

Ikr Is this the bit where we return to our HK drama film?

Towncred? Why would you want something like that? You usually traffic in approaching strangers to induce a weak-hearted Villager to want to adopt the murderpuppy smhhhhhh

What should you do? Get back in there! I don't know about you but I've got a mission and that's to make TJ swear He said the word just now but claims it doesn't count to our bet as he's not swearing at me.

It's never a proper* HK cop serial drama/film until one brother is good, one brother works for the triads, and then you end up killing each other, or just having a screaming disagreement and then walk out on each other to dramatic long pan flames all around in the wreckage. *Shush TJ **I'm aware a lot of them just have brother gangsters or cops which is a variant I personally prefer but why not just footnote this

YOU SAY THIS BUT YOU DIDN'T LOSE THE BET TJ says I should just stop gambling with you Sure, I'm up for round two, zero chulls given edition since there's no point in bothering. LG95 zen it is.

Just make your own decisions please. I don't need you to follow me, I appreciate you are trying and the trying is more important to me, which is why I shouldn't be frustrated with you particularly. Last Thoughts: Faerie has not been cced. With the Informant (Stick) dead, this means that the slate of candidates for Insider have dropped to: <Faerie, Neil, JNV.> I will argue there are only a thin slice of worlds in which the Insider shouldn't cc, since the Insider basically can win the game in this cycle for the Elims. I am not ruling out JNV. I semi want to, but in light of JNV's last cycle, I think JNV could be Evil. I still have some doubts, but it is also possible I am tilted af by JNV's vote last cycle. Faerie is our claimant, but also claimed last cycle to be preparing a gambit. No strong read - AG indicates E!Faerie has little interest in followthrough which is why I leaned E on her among other factors. Last option is Neil, who is dead. In Insider!Neil world, we win by killing Drake right now. (Arguably we probably should go Drake to hedge for this world, because either way in V!Neil worlds, we are still committed to a longer slog anyway.) There's a slender set of subworlds in which the Insider has decided they aren't sure if Drake will shoot right and have decided to take the slightly less risky PtV -> get Drake exed -> get the NK, kill the Contact. I lean against this because it drags things out one more cycle and risks that we won't shoot the Insider. -V!Raven (Stick mistake felt natural?) -V!Alv (really annoyed with having to make this read but here we go) -V!Sart Maybe lean V on Aeo - liked her interactions this cycle, and Royal had a nice agendaless C1 which makes me think the final pool is in: <JNV, Faerie> if not Neil.

Sigh. Sorry Raven. Should not be taking out my general frustration at craptastic play from the Village at you personally. Anyway I'm going to vote Drake. I really want us to lose this because the Village collectively bollicked this up at least twenty ways and I'm still so bloody mad at all the vanity voting, wanking, and posturing, none of which involved paying attention to our one wincon. I'm also mad as hell that we're legit arrogantly deciding Neil can be Evil so we don't need to do any further assessment or thinking, just #thoughtsandprayers. But anyway if I don't, Drake will absolutely take the chance to hammer and then we get a fun cointoss to see if the Elims sans Drake get to keep a clean slate after all, so whatever. I wash my hands off the results.

What the f is the goddamned point of signing up for a bloody game if you won't read the bloody rules. Come, I make this bigger for you. Drake has claimed Elim. There is pretty much no fing world Stick flips red but is still goddamned Evil unless you think Drake is this role on to some bloody goddamned scheme. Stick was one half of the fking Village losscon and I'm still not over the fact we let her die. Personal paranoias and 'fear' does not a goddamned gamestate make. "Wouldn't it suck if X were Evil" does not make X Evil. If this were true, then all we had to do was wish really hard and click our heels and exe Neil to win the game.

Why are you asking me when I gave you my reasoning already: We got off a cycle where people vanity-voted, cast idgaf votes, and Faerie's now claiming Insider. Once again, we deal with the scourge of vanity and IDGAF and "oh look at how Village I am" votes - what the f is the fing point of it? Keeping Stick alive should've been the goal and no one even bothered to converge early despite Stick pointing out the need for early convergence. I'll accept some blame for getting on at 5AM and not thinking to tell Stick to just vote Neil in the doc and pray. We have lost games because people were being so demonstrative they didn't bother to secure an exe. If your priorities as a Villager are looking like a Villager to everyone and not actually helping your team, I dgaf, you have lost the fing plot because your priorities are fing skewed. In light of all this BS, I don't really care to continue to play seriously anymore. I'm voting myself in protest because if the best y'all can offer is "Oh let's vote Drake and not bother to solve and just assume Neil was the Insider ig", then why should I waste more time on this? If that level of commitment is acceptable, so is my self-voting. Don't like it? Vote for me. Your vote is as valid as mine, and all playstyles are valid and my current playstyle is 'wtaf, idgaf anymore' Edited to add: You yourself asked what was the reasoning behind the Neil push - loitering, for the most part, which is a charge that could be levelled against Alv, against Faerie's dgaf vote, against Aeo as well. I don't remotely think Neil was a hit and in any case it was so poorly-discussed that believing this is a hit and arrogantly proceeding to go on is like closing your eyes and whistling because thoughts and prayers win the game. I'm not angry because we've probably lost - I'm angry because this was foreseeable and no one even fing bothered to try.

Well, a slightly expensive lesson but I'm glad it worked out in the end!