Mid-Range Game 9: The Steel Ministry

[Clanky]

@Zephrer: As much as it seems like a good thing to have concrete evidence before lynching it isn't going to happen. Especially in this game with no seeker. All the evidence we will have is circumstantial and at least slightly based off of instinct.

 

Now I find the Skaa kill on Mail quite interesting. I know that it can just be viewed as a fear kill and shrugged off but I'm not sure that is it. It is different from a fear kill since Mail was under suspicion by several people. Normally kills are made on people with little chance of being lynched and I think maill was already under enough suspicion that it shouldn't have been too hard to push a lynch onto him. So why would the Skaa kill him?

 

Was it to let everyone know that an inquisitor trusted Joe? Was it to get people to focus on Joe/Wyrm/Kas and everyone who was accusing/defending him? I think this could be a viable reason and that the Skaa were not involved with Maill in any way so they attempt to put suspicion somewhere that they have no part.

 

Was this supposed to make Joe look good since it would be silly for him to talk about the gamblers fallacy if he were actually a Skaa?

 

That's all very speculative at this point but I don't think we should it as more than a fear kill.

[Kasimir]

Thank you for speaking up, Zeph
 
I want to concur with Winter and Clanky here: instinct matters. You say instinct points you towards several people. Who are they? Why are they flagging your instincts? Even if instincts are unformed and unspecific, the more you interrogate your feelings, the more you can get out of them. Sharing this with us--even if it's as small as who you instinctively suspect--still gives us another angle on which to discuss things. Remember, we don't want to tunnel onto only a few options and issues. While discussion itself is selective and focused, it always helps when we have more fodder for discussion, and even knowing who your instincts are pointing to is something to consider: do other people feel the same way about that person? Why/why not? Drawing these connections are especially helpful for later in the game.
 
In addition, Clanky is correct to point out that we do not always have concrete evidence before a lynch. Many times, a lynch is pretty much a bit of evidence, crossing our fingers, and hoping for the best. Sometimes, we're lucky and we have a smoking gun. Not always. And on Day 1 and Day 2, these are the times when things are especially tenuous; cases against a player, if they exist, are more or less stitched together by instinct, with bunches of holes.
 
Last, I am going to differ from Winter. Even with the understanding that Ripple wasn't supposed to be lynched (GM error happened), her lynch was partly a matter of instinct. Alv acknowledged as much when he claimed that his vote on her was nothing more than unsubstantiable instinct. I want to challenge some of Creccio's implicit reasoning as well when they claimed that:
 

Is there any other reason than it being a subconscious reaction? Referring to the lynching as most likely a Skaa and claiming it on a confusion just does not roll for me.

We have been talking about a plan to get the Skaa since page one, not only that, but on the rules it is clearly stated the the Skaa are the bad guys in the game, on top of that, there were a good 2-3 posts on math behind our chances of hitting a Skaa/Villager. You have been active in the thread (Since page 2, afaik) and I do not believe you just "forgot, it can't be a coincidence.

Give me some good reasoning --other than "other games skaa=good"--, or else my vote is on you.

What is 'good reasoning'? 'Does not roll for me' is an appeal to intuition or at least deeply-held personal standards of evidence that are not articulateable (if you can articulate them, I'd be glad to here them) and which therefore function just like instinct because they are not intersubjectively accessible grounds for the rest of us.

-

My point is, we shouldn't eschew instinct as a reason for making moves at times, or to even kickstart discussion. It's sometimes unavoidable, particularly early in the game, and sometimes instinct can work very well. It can, more importantly, form a good starting point for discussion, or at least something for which we can go back and look at a few cycles on. Not all of us are great at analysis or have the patience for it. I can respect that. With the work on my plate, my attention span for these things has been increasingly short, of late.

But I intend to try, and I intend to at least share my impressions and instincts--even if I have to carefully earmark them as such.

-

...Okay, I'm going to stop procrastinating and get back to that paper on privacy rights now :/

[Creccio]

 

What is 'good reasoning'? 'Does not roll for me' is an appeal to intuition or at least deeply-held personal standards of evidence that are not articulateable (if you can articulate them, I'd be glad to here them) and which therefore function just like instinct because they are not intersubjectively accessible grounds for the rest of us.

-

 

 

Well,  when you are writing (at least when I write) I am focused on what the screen says i am writing.  Writing Skaa and not realizing it is just something that I personally do not feel should happen unless the Skaa were already on your mind, either by being one or trying to figure them out.

 

Indeed that might seem like instinct, call it what you may, but the mind is usually focused on one task at a time, and if you somehow mess up the names of things it is because your attention was split, Was she trying to cover for the Skaa or was she truly just making a typo?

 

At this point is fairly obvious which is which but at that time, i firmly held my vote and held it up and proud until she died.

 

I feel deeply sorry for killing you Ripple, believe me, but I did what I believed and if you believe I am better dead, then let it be so.

 

 

Good reasoning to mess up? I can't really think of any right now, maybe there weren't other than "It just happened". Maybe she WAS trying to figure out how to get the Skaa and just messed up her wording, and if maybe if she had revealed more information about what she was (Claim?) and openly tried to show her innocence I would have gone back on my word. Alas, none of that happened and she is dead.

 

If you want we can continue to battle wits, but I do believe we are on the same side in this game and we should focus on killing Skaa instead of poking each other.

 

RIP Mail

RIP Ripple

 

I shall mourn your deaths all day.

[Clanky]

Joe, according to your own infallible logic since Maill is good you therefore must be bad? Why were you so quick to assume that Maill was fear-killed?

 

EDIT: Colour

Edited October 21, 2015 by Clanky

[nicocoberru]

Welp. Ripple killed by the Grammar Police.

 

If we're going on by guts here, then the ones my guts are warning me are Orlok and Joe, due to that whole Ripple debacle, though, everyone has already mentioned that so...

[A Joe in the Bush]

Anaylsis of someone visiting me:

The only options are a lurcher, seeker, smoker or rioter.

The skaa would have no reason to lurch me. My plan was no longer working, and I was rather suspicious. They would beore likely to ignore me and hope a coinshot took me out.

The skaa would have no reason to smoke me either, since I'm a inquisitor. All that would do is defend me from being soothed, seeked or rioted.

Rioting a player who had claimed to be a tineye is just a waste. I doubt anyone would choose to do so.

A skaa seeker might choose to visit me, if they didn't believe I was a tineye, but mailliw spent a lot of time vouching for my honesty, and they knew he wasn't a skaa.

So I choose to believe the person who visited me is a inquisitor. Unless someone can point out something Missed?

Edit: ninja'd by clanka.

Because we do to much anaylsis of eliminator kills in these games. The safest option is always to kill the most experianced players, unless you learn of a powerful role. That's why I fhink mailliw was a fear kill.

And I said it was illogic, not logic, that made me want to vote for mailliw. Plus I added that if he was a inquisitor, I was the GM. I'm actually Gamma fiend!

Edited October 21, 2015 by The Only Joe

[the winter system]

Kas, what do you mean by 'differ' from me? Little confused by what you mean there. 

[Alfa]

Well, if we do not have a smoking gun (or a bloody knife or whatever), which seldom seems to be the case, we can only get lead by our instinct. A short recapitulation of the involved dead people shows us, that

1) Alvron, Creccio and Joe voted for ripple

2) Ripple, Adavantos and myself voted for Phatt; which, without the error would have lead to a tie.

3) Mailliw voted for Lopen

 

What can we read out of it?

Not much, as anybody who played SE or something similar knows very well. Still, I have some thoughts on it.

I am not very familiar with SE history - first game - but grudge kills or something like that could be part of it. Does anybody know if anybody had a grudge on mailiw?

Also, Lopen is of course suspicious, because mailiw voted for him.  Also of course the kill could be intended to put the suspicion on Lopen. Also it could be that the skaa killed mailiw to make us think that mailiw was killed to put supicion on lopen and so on...

As for phattmer: In fact i was just accusing a random silent bystander, as i was accused by Adavantos before, that it lead him to the top of the list was not intended. Either way, with a lynch our chances to get a skaa this round increase. Also to notice, that Adavantos said, he voted for him to make sure that ripple won't be lynched. That, I believe, is more an inquisitor-like behaviour. If he is a skaa, he would have tried to get an inquisitor lynched and not to reach an killvote equilibrium without a lynch.

So, i assume Adavantos to be innocent.

More is difficult to say for now. Any opinions on that semi-analysis?

Edited October 21, 2015 by Alfa

[A Joe in the Bush]

Thwre are several people who could have grudge killed mailliw after his survival shenanigans in Lg14. Other than that I mainly agree with your analysis.

[Clanky]

Because we do to much anaylsis of eliminator kills in these games. The safest option is always to kill the most experianced players, unless you learn of a powerful role. That's why I fhink mailliw was a fear kill.

And I said it was illogic, not logic, that made me want to vote for mailliw. Plus I added that if he was a inquisitor, I was the GM. I'm actually Gamma fiend!

 

Yes I know that is the safe thing for an eliminator to do. But what is different this time is the fact that maill had suspicion on him by others. Normally you don't target someone who is potentially going to get lynched. There are plenty of other options for a fear-kill that don't have any suspicion on them, Kas, Wyrm, Alv... Why not kill one of them and hope Mail gets lynched?

Edited October 21, 2015 by Clanky

[A Joe in the Bush]

Because killing mailliw makes everyone suspicious of Kas, Wyrm and Alv who are experianced and weren't killed? I don't know. I've never correctly anticipated a day 1 kill before, nor correctly gotten the reasoning behind it. So I choose to analysie votes and lynches instead.

[Clanky]

OK I have removed my vote from you. I still think that this kill has more analytical value then most cycle 1 eliminator kills. 

[STINK]

Y'know whats worrying me? This discussion. 

 

Wyrm. You placed a few votes last cycle.

Edited October 22, 2015 by IrulelikeSTINK

[Kipper]

I would hesitate to call Mailliw's death a fearkill. The way my thought process would have run is this (I suppose this assumes that Joe is good, but it can be read either way):

1. I should kill Wyrm, Alvron, Joe, Kas, or Mailliw simply as a matter of course. Everyone expects it, so they won't read too much into it. They'll go "fearkill" and that will be it.

2. But If I pick the right person, I can manufacture some extra suspicions based off of the death.

3. Joe brought up the plan, so someone will likely target him. Can't run the risk of him being protected, especially on Night One.

4. Mailliw has been active in thread; active to the point that not only have quite a few people given a read on him, but some people have even made if/then statements about his alignment.

5. If I kill Mailliw, it will cause maximum confusion, and I won't run as much risk of him being Lurched.

6. *stabs Mailliw*

How did the hipster burn himself?

That's about it. Mailliw was a good target in terms of confusion. This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think that this early in the game, we can simply chalk up Mailliw's death to a combination of fearkill, desire to cause confusion, and expectedness. Most players expect more experienced players to die. I feel like there’s almost a subconscious reaction to that (my use of the word “subconscious” should not be misconstrued as a reference to the Ripple Debacle). For example, people are more likely to say, “If Action x happens,” (x in this case being Mailliw’s death) Player Y is evil. So a wise Eliminator can simply kill an experienced player (obviously not himself) and skate by.

 

It has long been my wish that we could all simply not talk about issues like this, by some unspoken agreement. The act of discussing things in D1 that really do not matter the game as a whole gives the Eliminators quite an easy path to follow. Discussing whether or not we should do D1 lynches eliminates the threat of a lynch. Asking whether or not we should discuss D1 lynches removes all the teeth of a lynch.

He drank his coffee before it was cool!

HAHAHAHAHAHA

@Adavantos The flaw that I was referring to can be illustrated this way. Suppose I want to pick a child to give a million dollars to. I confront a crowd of children, composed of all ages. I say, “Alright, I’m going to put a blindfold over my eyes. When I say ‘GO,’ the first child to reach me will get the million dollars. No matter who reaches me first, I will give them a million dollars. But I only want 14 year olds to try. Only 14 year olds.” Guess who will come forward. All of the children. What’s to stop them? They know they’ll get the million dollars if they touch him first, so who cares? Maybe an 8 year old will do it. Or maybe a really bad 14 year old, a vandal.

Blindfold = Joe’s tin.

14 year olds = Lurchers

Bad 14 year old = Skaa Lurcher

Other children = anybody with a metal action

Million dollars = Joe defending somebody in a lynch

 

For putting forth a clearly flawed plan, my vote goes on Joe. The counter-argument that he wasn't giving out the whole plan doesn't really hold water, methinks. Why not reveal the whole plan, if you did anyway in the end? What was the harm? I think he was trying to sniff out some Lurchers to kill. I also don’t like how he’s setting himself up as a town leader.
Full disclosure: I’m not opposed to town leaders in general. There’s just something that doesn’t feel right about the way Joe is doing it.

[polkinghornbd]

I'll vote on Stink.  

 

Y'know whats worrying me? This discussion. 

 

What's worrying you?  People discussing reasons for the round's kills?

Edit: undoing vote

Edited October 22, 2015 by polkinghornbd

[STINK]

The lack of discussion, mostly. (And I do sound really rude here) As when most people were posting 'Sorry Ripple' for most of this topic, we need to discuss something else, as well as the fact that there hadn't been a post in here for a while so I felt that I needed to start a discussion, so the vote on Wyrm was placed as he made posts that analysed things well, and he hasn't done one yet!

[Clanky]

I don't think the problem is the discussion but more the lack of variety amongst the players doing the discussion. We have had 10(I think) people post this cycle out of 24 left alive and we still have some people who haven't posted all game. 

 

I will be putting my vote on Araris. You put the second vote on an inactive newbie. Why meandbooks? Phat has played a few games and has also not showed up. What are your thoughts on the game?

[polkinghornbd]

Thanks, Stink.  The way I read it it sounded like you didn't like what discussion we had had.  Based on Joe's illogic, I should vote for him, because if he is supposed to be opposite Mailliw and he wasn't evil, Joe should be.  But I don't distrust Joe even with because of his failed plan.  It just doesn't seem logical to make a pretend plan with a flaw, then reveal it when no one else had realized it.

[Alfa]

Remember to make the original vote green, too, or it will be counted.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Alfa

[Wyrmhero]

The lack of discussion, mostly. (And I do sound really rude here) As when most people were posting 'Sorry Ripple' for most of this topic, we need to discuss something else, as well as the fact that there hadn't been a post in here for a while so I felt that I needed to start a discussion, so the vote on Wyrm was placed as he made posts that analysed things well, and he hasn't done one yet!

 

Give me a chance, I've quite literally been at work for 14 hours. I wasn't kidding when I said today would be busy for me >>. And you're not going to be getting much today either, since it's half 11 and I have to be up again in 7 hours.

 

...Having said that, I then went and wrong some stuff anyway. Oh well.

 

3. Wyrm confirmed for holder of Death Note. Chief, can you please do me a favour and never use me in your examples of who might die? >> (Be interested in what you have to say about it, though.)

 

...The morale of the story is that our Lurcher(s) should listen to me?

 

Seriously, Mailliw's death basically tells us nothing, for reasons already stated. Searching for meaning in the first kill was always going to be a waste of time - I stated this last Cycle, and this is why I said a lynch is necessary to gain information. The first kill is always an experienced player and all it has done is made us go 'Oh, Mailliw was innocent. Maybe this means something,' without being able to say what. There are so many reasons that Mailliw could have been killed (experience/familiarity/misdirection/false confirmation of his thoughts) that the actual reason is probably impossible to decipher.

 

I am concerned by Alvron and Joe both taking part in the lynch of a new player for a very minor mistake. They are both experienced players who should know better than to jump on the mistakes of a new player. And also there's the fact that the lynch basically told us nothing on its own. I find it interesting that Joe ignores the fact that Mailliw's death implicates him too - Particularly considering how well Mailliw claimed to understand Joe. Consider that killing Mailliw after he says 'Joe is innocent, I can feel it' might make us believe Mailliw because he's innocent.

 

Now, I'm not going to vote for Joe here. I'm going to vote for Alvron. The reason for this is basically because Joe has said something so far, and Alvron has not. I want to know why this vote was placed there, and what exactly he hoped to get out of it.

[the winter system]

I'm keeping my vote for Orlok for now. Though, I might have to look back at LG12 for an example- there was a lynch on an innocent player first cycle and everyone suspected the lynchers, but the eliminators (the Jeskeri, me including back then) had nothing to do it. Maybe that's what happened here. Like I always bring up. So, maybe I'll retract later. Still want more of an explanation from Orlok. 

[Gamma Fiend]

Important Notice: Due to my error with the lynch tally, and the incorrect lynch on Ripple, she will now be fulfilling the role of a Pinch-Hitter. So first player who notifies me that they want to drop out of the game for inactivity issues, Ripple will take that character's place, role, info, and all. Please do not abuse it, as there is only one Pinch-Hitter position available, so really only consider it if you really believe you can't continue the game otherwise. 

And with that, back to your regularly scheduled slaughter!
 

[Orlok Tsubodai]

Winter, I explained what I did this morning (17 hours ago for timezone clarity). I noted that a mistake had been made, deemed it worthy of being brought to people's attention, and thought that the most effective way of doing so was through a vote. I absolutely did not expect it to lead to a lynch - I attempted, unsuccessfully, to divert the lynch train this morning.

Yes, I could have removed my vote from Ripple before I went to sleep past night. But given there seemed no overwhelming threat of her lynch, I thought it more sensible to leave it be, where it could continue to put pressure on her - people always act in more interesting ways when there is a threat of a lynch.

I would, though, like to reiterate, that Ripple, I really am very, very sorry for instigating your lynch over it, and causing you the distress you indicated.

[Meandbooks]

Okay, I'm here at last. Due to an impressive level of derp on my part (basically I was subscribed to the wrong thread and didn't find the right one until it was too late) and timezones I haven't been able to post.

 

I'm also feeling distrustful of Joe, but beyond what has been speculated already I can't say it's more than just a gut feeling. On the one hand, his plan does seem like something a skaa would do, but it also seems unlikely that a skaa would do something so obviously suspicious. In addition, several of his posts regarding his plan and what he intended to do seem to have severely flawed logic.

 

And then it comes to the fact that his plan is indeed flawed. There are two possible reasons for this flaw - either it was a mistake on his part, or it was intentional.

 

If it was a mistake, that could mean he is not a skaa and he just didn't think through his plan well enough. Or it could mean that he is in fact a skaa and that mistake reveals that the true purpose of his plan is to find people to kill.

 

If the flaw was intentional...I'm not really sure why it would be intentional, but I think the idea is worth considering. Having missed most of the last round, I'm not familiar enough with the plan to analyze it in this light. Perhaps someone else could take a stab at it?

 

 

I think the Araris situation is more complicated than that. There were two good reasons for voting for me last round - one is to encourage inactive members to be active, like he said. The other one follows this logic: newbie members who are skaa might choose not to post because they are wary of discovery or don't know how to act innocent. There are flaws with that, but it could be what he was thinking.

 

However, if his goal truly is to get inactive members involved, well, if they get lynched on the first day, they can't really be involved after that, so voting for them could backfire.

 

Even so, I doubt he is a skaa. If he were skaa, why try to get an inactive member, who isn't a threat at all, lynched? (Other than for the easy kill.) It also has clearly cast suspicion on him.

[Araris Valerian]

Well, thank you Meandbooks, for your valiant defense of my actions. I was assuming that nobody would make a mistake like the one you made, and was wrong. This is SE though, and we are supposed to be a bit bloodthirsty. I'm glad that you are still alive in your first game, considering that you weren't intentionally inactive But I don't think Kasimir was really trying to address whether or not we should lynch you. He was getting on me for sliding by without contributing much to the conversation, which I admit I am guilty of.

 

So the one person that seems like a hot topic to me is Joe. He had a plan that never was intended to work (as I understand it now), but it was presented like it should have worked. Then it turns out Joe misinterpreted the rules and it wouldn't have worked anyway. I was ok with his plan because it seemed like something that would both generate discussion and have the possibility of accomplishing something, although looking back it is hard to see exactly what. I would say that it is partly thanks to Joe that we had 8 or so pages of discussion last cycle. The end result of his plan is a bit suspicious, since lurchers would presumably be wasting charges that could be spent elsewhere better. This does seem a bit in line with what he tried last game though. I guess the line for me is that the plan was never intended to work, so the potential to waste protection roles leads me to suspect Joe more than I did before. But I'll leave him to respond to the vote that has already been placed, and try and add a bit more analysis tomorrow.