Salmon Meerkat

i wish to avoid making enemies. there is still time yet.

Sal shakes his head I do not know. Loyalties take awhile to ascertain for me. I apologize. It is just how one loyal, humble servant of the village finds his marks.

he unvoted me, no? Loyalty, once shown, is enough. the vote was a "dead mans switch" in a sense. now that said pressure is off, i no longer feel the need to keep it there. that does bring to mind though. has anyone else voted me?

Falcon My friend. I am sorry it has to be this way. We thank you for your service of this town. Loyalty above all else, man.

that was quick.

Sleep is good for you.

Sal walks around quietly. I do not know. I do not know how us such as we are can root out the Non-Loyalists.

how rude. why, despite my most honest of claims, must be under fire because of my loyalist tendencies.

Oh, fancy.

It is neccessary, in times like this, to perhaps deal in absolutes.

Sal stared at the words on the ground. I wonder what a "PM" is.

As one loyal to the village, i am very confused as to what that means. It brings me to suspect Falcon

My name is Sal. I am but a simple man. And I shall survive. If the spiked kill me, or I am executed, I do so Loyal to the Village.

That much is contentious, because it's not clear how counterfactual implication works! The point is that no one actually sets out to take a formal logic system and apply it to counterfactual implication: simply put, you can't have it both ways. You can argue that counterfactual implication should be handled by possible world semantics (as indeed, David Lewis and Alan Hajek more or less argue in the vein of), but then possible world semantics don't care about your contradictions, because all that matters is that any given possible world is a consistent state of affairs (note: this blows up if we begin to consider impossible worlds, but the basic form of counterfactual evaluation on this theory only cares about possible worlds, so we'll bracket this.) But then this means that the Law of Non-Contradiction is not the correct level on which to evaluate counterfactual statements - you simply can't translate two subjunctive conditionals and regard them to straightforwardly be decomposable to A and ~A. You keep on asserting this can be done. This is an extremely major logic system assumption that you have continued to fail to be able to back up. All the systems and frameworks I am mentioning do not even commit to this! (Simply put: it is okay for two counterfactuals to be false if they point to different possible worlds or if there is no unique possible world that can be picked out!) If you want to bring in the Law of Non-Contradiction, as you just did, you are simply arguing for some form of unity in the evaluation of subjunctive and indicative conditionals. And that's why I'm pointing out that takes us back to the formal logic structure of if-hook and that blows up too because we get wonky results when trying to evaluate counterfactuals as long as we deliberately select for a false antecedent! Is it? 1. You are arguing that this should be handled the same way as an indicative conditional, at the same time as you reject the use of material implication to handle subjunctive conditionals. I invite you to reflect and consider deeply the consistency of this position. 2. Do you think the truth table is the same? You cannot assert that these two claims are logically equivalent if you both reject material implication and cannot offer a coherent translation of the connector employed. See my above comments on possible worlds. All that is required for if S, then P, and if S, then not-P to both evaluate as false is for there to be no coherent nearest possible S-world we can identify in which P is true. This is fundamentally the swamping neighbourhood argument that Hajek is making. You don't need to postulate an impossible world: you simply need indeterminacy in the nearest neighbours. I also note the bolded part is not in fact a point of wide agreement - I invite you to consider how well classical logic rules are in fact known to hold sway and the fact we have an entire array of post-classical systems designed specifically to patch the holes in the classical system. I'll give you this, sir >:P

Actually, no, because your statement implies the law of noncontradiction applies straightforwardly to conditionals and we know it doesn't. In other words: it only works if we assert that counterfactual A and counterfactual B are negations of each other, but just because the consequents are opposed doesn't imply the counterfactual itself is. Or to put it another way: One can't, unless one is Graham Priest and endorses one of multiple paraconsistent logic systems, assert that P and not-P at the same time. (Note that even Priest is not committed to the claim that it is always the case that P and not-P, only that it is sometimes the case that P and not-P.) However: it is also not the case that if A, then P, and if A, then not-P actually translate into logical contradictions of each other. (Part of this has to do with the truth table.) Conditionals don't evaluate the same way as naked statements. Some of this boils down to arguments about whether hook is the correct translation of the conditional or not. See above. This rests on a contentious translation that contradictory consequents are actually contradictory simpliciter. I also point out that this doesn't work well with multi-value logics and paraconsistent systems. In fact, given you are evaluating counterfactuals by modal logic, you're already looking at a selection of systems, some of which are silent about contradictions. Edited to add: Here's the truth table for S⊃P and S⊃~P (can't really use proper not notation here.) The combined truth table is highlighted in blue. If they were really contradictions, the truth table values we should see is F-F-F-F: contradictions formally defined evaluate as false under all possible truth values in the table. Compare to: The takeaway lesson is: 1. Conditionals are weird 2. Some of the issue probably boils down to hook translation. But if not material conditional, then what do we use? 3. Conditionals are actually cool 4. "Even the crows on the roof-tops are cawing about which conditionals are true." - Callimachus. The Greeks hated this too! 5. You can probably argue for a separate semantic evaluation of counterfactuals as a particular subspecies of conditionals which is what Hajek is doing but it's worth noting that if you do want to bring in the law of non-contradiction, then it basically has Problems. Disclaimer: This used to be my life and made me happy Edited to add 2: Now you could argue the implication of Hajek is that since most ordinary counterfactuals are false, we wind up with a contradiction. But really that's a narrow read of the situation because this means pretty much every ordinary counterfactual turns up with a false truth value by default: it doesn't matter whether it's S⊃A, S⊃B, S⊃C, S⊃P, S⊃~P. Like, the really stunning impact of an evaluation of most ordinary counterfactuals as false isn't about the Law of Non-Contradiction, it's really about the fact that statements we ordinarily take to have some form of truth value, e.g. "If Orlok had remembered to sign up for the AG, he would have voted Cham" or "If I were Village, you would have MLed me for not claiming," all come out as just blatantly false. But it's clear the utterer doesn't in fact believe they are uttering a falsehood. It's less an issue of contradiction and a worrying one about vacuousness. Edited to add 3: To be honest, the reason I think evaluating counterfactuals is really interesting is that standard conditional analysis automatically implies they are all true if you don't go modal. (Again, if you translate conditionals via hook, then any false antecedent commits you to the conditional evaluating as true. But that creates a separate set of problems - intuitively, it's just as odd to say "If Orlok had remembered to sign up for the AG, he would have voted Cham" and "If Orlok had remembered to sign up for the AG, he would not have voted Cham." are both truth statements. The appeal of Hajek's approach is that he takes up the intuitive approach which is that okay, maybe the problem is we don't evaluate the antecedent against the actual world - let's use modal logic/possible world semantics. And then that's when things get Complicated.) Edited to add 4: For anyone who finds this deeply fascinating/feels passionate about conditionals, you can check out Jonathan Bennett's 'A Philosophical Guide to Conditionals.' Some of Bennett's evaluations are fairly contentious and he takes sides more than some authors do but in general is still a very fun primer to the topic and the various positions people have staked out in the surrounding debates. I spent the LG15-20 (I think?) time thereabouts on this *Technically the correct response to this is to not even bring formal logic into subjunctive conditional evaluation, but it's complicated. A lot of energy has been spent on trying to find the correct way to evaluate counterfactuals for sure. And I love Edgington's writing You have activated Salmon Meerkat's philosophical nerd mode! Type <UNSUB> to switch it off again!

It is both false that if counterfactual statements were in fact true, then you would sometimes use them, and that if counterfactual statements were in fact false, you would sometimes not use them. It is also false that if counterfactuals were in fact true, then you would sometimes not use them >:P

Great minds. This is true, but it is also a valid strategy when you are confused about what something has to do with you ED1T: I also recommend avoidance of a direct answer, letting people draw their own conclusions, and if they say you are a Seeker, say, "It is you who say I am," or otherwise imply you are allergic to giving a direct answer to that question. I've not played KKC though so I dunno if lying by omission or misdirection counts then you are SoL I guess.

My suggestion is to try counterfactuals and then when the GMs @ you, direct them to my grand-supervisor Alan Hajek's persuasive paper about how most ordinary counterfactuals in fact evaluate as false, therefore everything you say is a lie.

Why would there be...? Dunno sir, you sure you're not thinking about something you said?

I will point out I was careful with my words to Croc though I did shade into outright lying at points. On the off-chance he was Village, I wanted to have told him things that were mostly true, so I Aes Sedai-ed a lot. It was a inter-temporal collaboration on our part >:P I've told them all I'm Kjell. It's not my problem SE players aren't good at listening to what they're told >:P

Smh I never lied to you! I was completely honest!

Salmon theft is a crime under Section 420 of the Tyrian Penal Code.

Would I ever lie to you? Me??? Does a meerkat face this cute hugging an emotional support salmon ever aggressively lie about the identities of various assorted players both blatantly and willfully???

Es ist an der Zeit. Thank you to everyone for the game. @Charcoal Hyena, @Plum Rhinoceros @Coral Swan o7 Private Onidsen is saved. Expect the RP sir

Aurelien noticed that the mists seemed to have emerged a little earlier this evening, as though they had been drawn by...whatever Lion felt he was doing. One way or another, Aurelien wasn't too interested in bandying words. That was a bust. The point about Lion's anomalous reaction to the Tineye message was one thing, stacked like load-bearing columns. There was Lion's continued detachment from the matters of the village. He was content to linger, to watch, but not to lend his voice [OOC: to vote] to any matter at all. The sort of detachment you expected, perhaps, from a Spiked spy. He recalled Lion's comment on the first evening, that he'd been sorry to miss events that had led to the death of Taltin Keriell. That was something Aurelien didn't understand. If you weren't remotely interested in these matters, then what difference did your presence or absence make? [OOC: Wondering if comment about missing EoD is partly indicative. Lion's allergic to voting so missing EoD shouldn't matter to him.] Anyway, Lion's survival boded nothing particularly well. Lion hadn't cared to defend himself, and the swing towards Lion at the end had come swiftly. He did not feel that Aylia meant ill with her switch to accusing Lion. He had, after all, seen Aylia's confusion firsthand. It was also a very unnecessary place to be, for someone to accuse at the very last instant. Even if you suspected or expected a set-up. But by this point, it was scarcely news that Aurelien thought Aylia was sincere in her desire to root out the Spiked. Hastler said, "That one's trouble." He said it the same way he'd talked about the defenses of the Steelmongers, as though they were nothing more than an obstacle to be overcome. But that was the way Hastler thought: systematically. Step by step. Stand up and face up to it. There wasn't any trouble, to Hastler's mind, that you could not think your way out of, or be clever about. For all he was probably preaching to the choir, Aurelien figured it was worth pointing out that Lion actively permitting or encouraging a wasted vote was an attitude that resonated more closely with the Spiked than that of a Villager. [OOC: Not really sure how to frame it in RP, guess this part's a bust as well. Long story short, encouraging the Village to waste a lynch on you if you are a Thug/Mistborn with Pewter isn't the end of the world but it's a suboptimal Village outcome and adds to Lion's ongoing anti-Village behaviour. Pretty ok with a Lion shot. And since I was on the train and couldn't answer - Flamingo, my point is that it is a legitimate play for power roles to hide in the sus pool, dodging the NK because Elims think they can be lynched. This becomes counterproductive when your own team starts looking at you within the CS kill pool, and the stumbling block I have is that you lurked and didn't consider it worth your while to get out of the kill pool, when that's detrimental to your team if you are Village. Really, my main issue with you is you give me both Village vibes and anti-Village reactive vibes in sum so it's just hard to get a coherent read.] That one bore watching. Dealing with the threat of the Spiked had caused the rebuilding to slow down. Aurelien stared at the half-rebuilt hulk of the smithy in the dark, lights doused, and shook his head. No, he thought. There would be no rebuilding, no rising from the ashes, until the Spiked were found and stopped. Somehow. But there was no other alternative. No more market square. Not another. Not again. His hands curled into fists at his side, his mouth set in a firm, tight line of determination. That was how it was going to be. But perhaps there were other avenues that weren't a bust. Working as he currently did with his suspicions of Lion, Aurelien found himself re-examining both Weasel and the orphan [OOC: Scorpion] and the role they'd played. There was WitLees, the bartender, as well: Aurelien felt that WitLees's heart was in the right place, and yet he didn't have anything solid to back that. The fact that Albatross felt so certain that WitLees was some greater evil that Lion had taken an execution to save only sat poorly with him: he struggled to comprehend how Albatross formulated that theory. Part of it, he supposed, was that Weasel and WitLees didn't really seem to be two Spiked interacting with each other, even when WitLees acknowledged he'd been absent of late and his heart hadn't been into things. (For what it was worth, Aurelien supposed that if pressed, he would've said that it didn't really seem in WitLees's character to act this way if Spiked, he got a sincere vibe off WitLees, and he felt that a Spiked WitLees didn't have reason to re-enter the game in the way he did the previous day, unless it was to save Rhino or Agolac. But then, Agolac'd subsequently had been fine with endangering WitLees, though WitLees didn't want to endanger Agolac, so there was an asymmetric relationship there.) [OOC: If forced to explain my gut at saberpoint, I think it's a combination of the fact that Cham feels sincere about being estranged and getting back into the game, that I don't really see this as being in E!Cham's meta even though it'll probably screw me over one game, and the fact that returning D2 to cast a really quick vote on Heron is counterproductive for E!Cham and draws him into the crosshairs even more unless his vote was needed to save Flamingo or Rhino (timing-wise.) I V!read Rhino, and if you theorise he's E/E with Flamingo, you then have to explain Flamingo's relative willingness to endanger Cham today, and Cham's relative unwillingness to vote Flamingo. This vote came eight hours to EoD which is a bit early for a protective vote. I don't really think this is the correct analysis but I think it's worth highlighting at the very least that E!Cham is a potential connection there.] Certainly, of the two that others had identified, Aurelien found himself looking more warily at Weasel. He felt that there was only so long you could say it wasn't in someone like Weasel to kill Reverse and then build an entire defense out of that. Not when so much of what Weasel did: his repeated broadcasting of his disinterest in the fate of Tyrian Falls, and his shift from accusing WitLees to Lion despite initially arguing the case against WitLees was more robust than that against Lion, which seemed somewhat ill-founded. Aurelien was concerned that there was something more sinister behind Weasel's refusal to accuse Lion, until the point at which the Spiked had indubitably considered (in a world where Lion was Evil), splitting tactics to be a bust and had gone for an outright bus instead. Finding that the orphan [OOC: Scorpion], too, had made a crucial shift off of Lion to keep WitLees in contention. In a world where Lion was not Spiked (which Aurelien found unlikely, but you had to acknowledge it anyway), the move was probably a good one, though something about the accusation struck him as strange. In a world where Lion was Spiked, the orphan had moved off of Agolac to bring Cham back into contention again. That was also a little strange: in a world where Agolac was a hapless Village Mistborn, you'd've expected the orphan to take the opportunity to keep the trains equal, balancing Lion against Flamingo, rather than bringing WitLees into contention entirely. It was probably trivially true to say that the orphan was tied to both Agolac and WitLees, but that seemed to be the sort of conclusion Aurelien was staring at. Either way, his stand now was that he'd probably been a bit overhasty to say the optics of making a counterintuitive and apparently false accusation against Reneau the previous day meant the orphan was more likely to be a Villager. But he was not sure if losing his parents to the Spiked drove a youngling to join the Spiked. Something about becoming what you hated. Donn Keihote was another person Aurelien had his eyes on. He didn't know whether it was right to say that the Spiked were hiding among the quiet ones in Tyrian Falls, but he did note that Keihote had an extremely indifferent reaction to coming close to death the first day. Dragonfly had more or less disappeared but had been looking in on events as well. Aurelien continued to have his misgivings about the both of them. At least, this was his stand.