DrakeMarshall

all 3 of us flip as Octet members in a regular game, waiting on a flip to proceed might be a pretty good idea but this is not a regular game, so respectfully, waiting on a flip and putting off using analysis is not a good plan

guys sometimes underreacting or not treating a claim seriously isn't being too smart to fall for a reaction test it's not keeping your options open it's not being cautious and deliberate it's just the village having a BSOD moment if you really want to keep your options open, start by making some effort to enumerate what those options are and compare them hesitating to have an opinion and being cautious aren't the same thing

yes I'd mind, I'm setting the record straight if you don't wish to believe me that's certainly your right

smh you r such a liar smh you literally suggested the self-destruct it was your idea it has you written all over it

Stick is basically allergic to locking her vote smhhhhh what was it she said my vote is on Drake in spirit well that's a paraphrase but it's pretty close Aman (1): Drake No Vote (2): Aman, Stick

I certainly hope it wasn't edit: I mean that's sort of a meta discussion thing but I'd file the way things are going down as "potentially an acceptable way for things to play out in a setup of this type, but one that should probably just be an unlikely edge case" that said, pathological edge cases are a lot less unlikely when your doc roster is these 3 players in particular

well then this is me i am teammate #1 yea so this part didn't happen this way im not sure if it really matters at this point but im the real Informant and in fact, teammate #2 did not decide "hey yea snap voting seemed like a cool idea, I'm gonna lock my vote in early too" also, if you were the real informant, you'd have outed both of your docmates, which well you didn't do so let's just be on the complete and total level the Octet doc is Drake, Aman, Stick Both Aman and Stick decided I was the rat after I voted Aman early and voted Stick in the thread I could say something or other about wrong for the right reasons but It doesn't really matter does it I beefed it Anyways, neither of the other 2's NK votes are locked in yet, but regardless, whether it's by the exe or by the NK, I cannot imagine a world where I don't die today Both of them are quite clearly committed to this course So yeah I'm crashing this van with no survivors it's the best I can do in the situation, even if it isn't very much if we lose I will accept responsibility pretty much but I will also be watching with popcorn from the dead doc sorrynotsorry this is fine

Thread PM: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Kas - Drake

Thread PM: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL Kas - Drake

Stick.

Marshal Drake sighs as he sets a single sheet of paper on the floor. This one doesn't belong in any of the other paper stacks, which have already utterly taken over the desk he sits behind, the desk across from him which belongs to Mendwel who's on holiday, and too much of the floor space in between. All arranged in neat sheafs, not that it makes it look any less like the office was ground zero in an ettmetal detonation. The Eigth Octant's files are a sheer mess. It's a struggle to rationalize, to say it probably isn't malicious obfuscation. It really probably isn't. As far as he knows, all the information that ought to be kept here is there, it's just... Scattered and alloyed and folded beyond recognition in a heap of other nonsense. At the end of the day, most constables rightly prioritize stopping the bad guys over sorting through their filing cabinets. It only becomes a problem when the bad guys aren't getting caught. When it starts to look like there's corruption on the inside. Then you follow the paper trails. Then you scrutinize every detail for discrepancies. This could take a while. The marshal leans back, loosening the loudly floral tie around his neck and unbuttoning his collar. His chair creaks under his weight. They don't really build them with Koloss-blooded folks in mind. He reaches for the cup of coffee nestled carefully between stacks of paper on his desk, which is warm but not properly hot anymore. He shakes his head ruefully. Well, it was only getting colder and more disappointing from here on out. He tips the cup back and downs it in a few gulps. He hears footsteps. "Don't touch anything," he reflexively growls. It may look like a tornado in here but by the Survivor's spear it's his tornado.

blatant partiality that's what this is

aye that's my plan too

I have no idea what you mean

I would accept this judgement from literally anyone but you

there literally are no PMs

I like this setup, probably. I shall enlist as Marshal Drake

That sounds like a pretty reasonable caveat to me yea. I strongly agree with this statement. But Hm I still believe it's a good idea to allow off-site NK submissions for solo elims? I think? I suppose, to me, it basically comes down to the fact that it also doesn't sit right with me for the village to be rewarded for inactivity or lurking, which is what can (potentially) happen right now. And I'd assert that this is probably a little bit worse. The way I see it, the point of allowing off-site NK submissions is ultimately to discourage lurking, not to enable it, even if that's certainly what it looks like it does in the short-term. The goal is that people who lurk aren't cleared from suspicion, regardless of their alignment. My view of the incentives: I will be clear that I think if anyone on any team is deliberately lurking that's a pretty bad faith thing to do and I don't like it. Still, I suppose I'd rather the incentives weren't unduly skewed. I suppose the whole point of this conversation on both sides is that it doesn't feel good if the rules encourage and enable bad faith behavior to any significant extent, whether or not we trust players to generally act in good faith. Anyways, my points boil down to this, I suppose: 1) Elims could always lurk by logging in, posting a single nothing post, and leaving (is this behavior a problem? quite possibly yes, but not really one that allowing/disallowing off-site NK submissions has bearing on). The marginal benefit they get from not logging in, and submitting an NK in their doc, isn't really that great compared to that. (Especially since they'll have to post sooner or later if the inactivity policy has any teeth.) Therefore, the way I see it, allowing off-site NK submissions isn't actually in practice very significantly encouraging elim lurking behaviors. 2) It remains that when the prevailing sentiment is that there's only 1 elim left, villagers potentially have quite a strong incentive to lurk. And making lurking more viable on either side of the fence is bad. 3) Villagers can also unintentionally be inactive and end up benefiting from it, which is also fairly undesirable imo. And that's probably a lot more common than people intentionally lurking anyways. idk that's my two cents for why Stick's suggestion makes sense I kinda agree in that my knee-jerk reaction to it was "??? why should we make it easier for elims to lurk" But for the above reasons I think it actually is a solid idea Edit: This is, I think, a pretty interesting idea, regardless of the outcome of the above debate. I don't know if we've ever had an inactivity filter that progressively ramps up as the game goes on. It sort of makes sense, in that things move more quickly in the late game. Not being around for all of D1 simply isn't nearly as big of a deal as not being around for all of LyLo. As an aside, I think I'd probably base the condition for when you crank up the filter on player count. You're going to get to that point sooner in smaller games, so rather than having it be "after 5 cycles" or something it should likely be "when you get down to 7 or fewer players" or something. Probably. Edit the Second: I too have lobbied for this, and while I'd agree with Stick that we shouldn't do it always, I do rather want to see some games that try this. Less because of bussing considerations for me personally and more because I think it's sometimes a plus in game design when the game doesn't dally too long in the territory where one side has probably won but we just need to chug away until the end. Attention span is real The reason I think we shouldn't always do this is because I also like a good comeback Stick pulled off a sick comeback in this game and I think she deserved the chance to, even if the coin toss didn't pan out in the end. Keeping the upper hand is as important as getting it in the first place, and I think it's probably good for us to be reminded once in a while that if you get too comfy with your lead you might get walloped for it.

re: letting elims submit their faction NK in the elim doc yes please re: anonymous games discouraging discussion about player IDs My flagrantly self-interested point of order here is that before we get into it too much with discussing the different aspects of this I just want to ask: do we actually need or want have to have a Consensus Standard About What The Real Meaning of Anonymous Games Ought To Always Be Because that's still a Question isn't it? like Yes, I'm sort of in favor of it honestly, let's have an anonymous game where the GM says "talking about Anon IDs in this game is discouraged, you are allowed to privately hold guesses but if I catch you trying to talk about them in-thread or in PMs you will be considered in violation of the rules" or idk substitute that for whatever more complicated implementation you think up if you deem a more nuanced approach is necessary Yes, I am planning on doing a game that goes all-in on literally the opposite approach, where guessing IDs is not only sanctioned but is actually an integrally necessary part of playing the game. And, well, anyone who really dislikes that premise is heartily encouraged not to sign up for it!! I'm all for debating what meta and convention ought to be Sometimes, there is pretty much a Right Answer and the other options actually aren't very good Sometimes, it's definitely correct to say "this is a convention that should be adopted across the board by default" But sometimes there isn't and it isn't Again, it's a Question you would have to ask I think I would argue that anonymous accounts are fundamentally a tool. Some tools lend themselves pretty strongly to one singular purpose. Others can accomplish multiple purposes! There doesn't have to be one purpose for anonymous accounts. And just because a tool was made with one thing in mind doesn't automatically mean it's wrong to use it in some different way. If you think it does in this case, well, that isn't something we are all on the same page about so maybe it's time to start explaining why Or, alternatively, if everyone agrees that really it's pretty fine to do both tbh, then the stakes of this debate are a bit lower I think Which doesn't necessarily mean it's not one worth having! But, well, framing is important that is all.

The balance of that is trippy because on the one hand bigger elim team = more voting power and on the other hand bigger elim team = more work required to move them all. Which... Hypothetically makes it a little bit self-balancing? This is definitely an interesting idea. One thing of note with the breakdown for example A: 4v;2e : B 4v;2e is that once the ratio progresses to A: 3v;3e : B 5v;1e or beyond, then group A is functionally elim controlled meanwhile group B is basically in a LyLo situation where they will probably lose if they don't steal an elim from group A. So you have a neat sort of inflection point there. ...Also, if there are no flips, then for the village to feel like they have at least some idea of what's going on there should probably be a somewhat generous allotment of informational abilities. And if there is a somewhat generous allotment of informational abilities, then for the elims to feel like they have options to work against them there should probably be disinformational abilities and/or mechanics that manufacture plausible deniability and/or roleclaims should generally be quite hard to confirm. ...of course, another route would be to actually have flips, or at least, some kind of public information that fulfills a similarish role in the context of this. Like, idk, maybe something along the approximate lines of "the absolute difference in # of elims between the 2 PMs is revealed in the writeup each cycle." This gives the village something decentish to go off for discussion but probably doesn't reveal too much? So you theoretically could do something like that and then not have to worry about giving people info and counterinfo abilities. I dunno there are Implications but anyways I might be interested in seeing something like this run edit: tbh I'd almost just say that once somebody has moved over they can't be voted for again for the rest of the game it's permanent but idk I'm not sure that might have unwanted side effects

LG83 did something related to arson

ALRIGHT y'all I found the motivation to do some work on tallybot you will see the changes reflected in the colab link that you all presumably have changelog in no particular order: redid how tallybot identifies colored text, thereby fixing a lot of the cases where it would fail to count votes every (known ) example of a vote the old code didn't count correctly now is counted correctly tallybot probably has a better idea of what shades ought to count as "red" or "green" added stuff to let you get tallies for past cycles in a merged thread in a more convenient way now you can just say turn number you want a tally for, and it'll look at the quick links list and do its best to automatically figure out where that turn starts and ends and generate a tally for you this is also a decent amount faster on games with lots of pages, because it only asks the shard to send over the pages it actually needs instead of requesting all of them added a "verbose" option which basically makes tallybot show it's work more -- in particular, this will give you the full sequence of votes and retractions in chronological order, instead of just the final tally, which might be useful for vote analysis tidied up a bunch of inconsequential crem that mostly only I cared about, like making the indentation consistent, or fixing some old and broken regex patterns for players that haven't been around in a while, stuff that didn't really matter and didn't really need fixing but braize if I didn't just fix it anyways Anyways feel free to give it a whirl! It won't necessarily build a tally for just any arbitrary older game because it won't necessarily have regex patterns for every player in an older game, but um otherwise it should be pretty good to go so yeah

(Yeah "LHF" is also a possible term to include although probably less important than the others!!) Anyways yeah tallybot

I think the SE glossary is definitely helpful and it helped me get my bearings back in the day when I started SE And I'm not a new player so take my feedback with a grain of salt here because the glossary is for new players. But I do have some suggested updates to it! Like for example we have a definition for "Jack" in there and uh ??? I've literally never heard anyone on the site use that before. That probably does not need to take up space on the list. Whereas there are some terms we bandy about nigh-constantly like "V/E" or or "v!<playername>" or "PoE" which aren't in there. Or for that matter what the heck we're talking about when we cite "the split" or "the distro" which sure yes those are real English words but they have a pretty specific assumed meaning in context if you use them in SE. And like sure you could figure out "PoE" with an internet search (a couple different mafia communities have wikis that have definitions for it) but, it's a really commonly used acronym here. And I figure at some point if something is central enough in SE, it crosses a threshold where it's allowable to include it in the glossary even if it's searchable elsewhere. Because well... "AI / NAI", "Alignment", "Balance" and "Bandwagon" are all things in the glossary that I could easily get google results for, and that's just from me quickly checking the first 7 terms on the list, I'm sure more of them are searchable if I went through all of them. Make of that what you will. (I think a case could be made for including "TMI" in the glossary but I actually think it's fine to leave that one out. I think this is a fairly legitimate case where "you can search for it elsewhere" is a valid reason to exclude it. Because "TMI" isn't even a specific acronym to mafia games in general, let alone SE. It's just, an English acronym. Like ASAP or ETA. It does not need to be in the SE glossary, and it isn't, and all is well ) Also, in my estimation, we use the term "train" quite a lot more often than "bandwagon" nowadays. Probably because it's a few letters shorter and therefore easier to type And AFAIK that one isn't easily searchable anywhere else. Some cursory searches indicate that "train" might actually be a piece of lingo fairly unique to SE Also interestingly there's "hardclaiming" (which I've rarely if ever heard said) but not "softclaiming" (sometimes just abbreviated to "softing") which is odd bc afaik softclaiming as a term is used much much more frequently than "hard" claiming. I think the implication when you say "claim" is very much that it's a hardclaim unless you specifically qualify it as a softclaim. If we're only going to define 1 of the 2 then it should be softclaiming. ...although actually, more generally "soft" and "hard" are used in a larger variety of contexts, like you could talk about a "soft" defense of somebody or a "soft" clear. So maybe instead just have a definition for "hard vs. soft" and call it a day, instead of having a bunch of seperate definitions for hard/soft claims, hard/soft clears, hard/soft defenses, etc. Idk. I think a case could be made for defining "poke vote" mainly just because it's something new players are bound to run into fairly early on since they happen at the beginning of a game, but after thinking about it, I don't believe it should be included. I think that one is kind of self-explanatory. It's a vote intended to poke, it's exactly what it says on the tin, imo it doesn't need a spot in the glossary. IIRC somebody asked what derpclearing means semi-recently, could be worth an inclusion. Note however that I'm pretty sure this term is more favored in other communities than it is in SE. I also think it would be nice to add "Rollovet" It's a bit more niche, but it's absolutely unique to SE and it's been brought up in multiple games, and heck I'm pretty sure in some cases the word "Rollovet" has even been used in the wording for the mechanics of a game as written up by the GM, so I'd say it deserves a spot on the list. Currently, we have both a definition for "metagame" and "metagaming." In my opinion, it is good and correct that we have 2 seperate definitions here, but I think the names "metagame" and "metagaming" don't make it very clear why there needs to be 2 seperate definitions. I think it would be clearer to call it "community meta" and "player meta" because that's more nearly what the distinction actually is. You have established and agreed upon norms about how you play the game ("the meta in the SE community") and you have the established track record of a particular player ("<playername>'s meta"). In both cases we are talking about "facts outside the scope of a single game" which is why it falls under the umbrella of "meta" but the subject is different. Finally you have abbreviations like "elim" / "eliminator" or "wincon" / "win condition" which personally I lean towards not including because they are basically just shortenings of terms that are clearly understood, but. I could go either way on those really ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ TL;DR - ADD: PoE, V/E, V/V, E/E, V!<player>, E!<player>, Split, Distro, Train, Derpclear, Rollovet REMOVE: Jack CHANGE: Hardclaim -> Hard/Soft, Metagame and Metagaming -> Community Meta and Player Meta Bolded are the terms to add which I believe are both 1) pretty ubiquitously used in SE and 2) not used anywhere else in any significant capacity afaik, even in other mafia communities. The other suggestions I've made have what I believe is fairly sound reasoning justifying them, but I recognize that they might be more contentious.