WW #41. New Horizons.

[Bacchus]

But how did he misrepresent your words? I also don't understand why you would vote for zak immediately after stating that doing so might put him under duress? Sure, maybe even asking the question is duress, but why run the risk of also voting for him?

Is this the explanation:

And that you could have done this [making a joke post on jettisoning random people] knowingly together with the possibility that you are forever undeterminable (when does duress stop? are scum generally under duress?) is enough for me to vote for you for now.

My comment in square brackets. There are so many caveats, "could have dones", "possibilities" and rhetorical questions there that it's hard even to read, much less to make sense of. And you have no trouble writing very clearly when you want to. This exactly would be the set-up -- write longwinded posts and weak comments full of caveats to then complain that they aren't quoted.

Maybe I'm failing to see something here, but the whole exchange between Serdoa and Zakalwe reads unnatural, if authentically aggressive.

[Serdoa]

Also Lewwyn is likely town. He stated that all villagers have 4 abilities. That's true for me as well and as no outcry happened probably for all villagers. But the village-PM is not in this thread if I'm not blind. So either scum was told the village-PM in their thread - and this is no tell in either direction - or they did not and Lewwyn is village.

I guess the latter, because the PM has the making of a standard PM that all parties got, just with the different alignment put in. But for scum it would be a risk to state 4 abilities, as they cannot be certain that the villagers got the same number of abilities (often scum will get more to make up power differences and with this setup, I don't see many abilities that can backfire if used incorrectly [Redirector being one]).

[Serdoa]

@Rowain:

What is the name of your faction? We have Earth First Liberationists and Human Expansionist League so far.

[BRickAstley]

I'm not going to be around a lot today, helping with a yard sale, but if it would be helpful to start doing ability reveals I can volunteer to reveal some of mine first, I don't think mine are super powerful compared to others.

[Serdoa]

But how did he misrepresent your words? I also don't understand why you would vote for zak immediately after stating that doing so might put him under duress? Sure, maybe even asking the question is duress, but why run the risk of also voting for him?

Is this the explanation:

And that you could have done this [making a joke post on jettisoning random people] knowingly together with the possibility that you are forever undeterminable (when does duress stop? are scum generally under duress?) is enough for me to vote for you for now.

My comment in square brackets. There are so many caveats, "could have dones", "possibilities" and rhetorical questions there that it's hard even to read, much less to make sense of. And you have no trouble writing very clearly when you want to. This exactly would be the set-up -- write longwinded posts and weak comments full of caveats to then complain that they aren't quoted.

Maybe I'm failing to see something here, but the whole exchange between Serdoa and Zakalwe reads unnatural, if authentically aggressive.

I love it when someone implicitly calls me scum without actually doing so Bacchus. If you believe I am scum - and your accusations that I don't write clear even though I am able to and that my exchange with zak is unnatural clearly hint at that - then simply state it.

But anyhow, I'll try to explain my argument against zak to you more understandably.

a) I believe it is possible that scum is under duress from the start and that zak made his first post in an attempt to gain cover if we use the polygraph on him and get "undeterminable" as result.

b) At the start, I thought he might have set himself up with his post to become undeterminable. Later I realized that he also might be from the start undeterminable, as scum might be from the start under duress (see point a). So his post might actually not be a ruse to make himself undeterminable but to gain an alibi why he is undeterminable in the first place. Not questioning that would give us nothing to check via polygraph, questioning it can already be used as explanation why he was under duress.

c) When I questioned him, he answered in a fashion that I know from scum zak. That is not by actually deconstructing the argument and showing its flaws but by trying to paint me as the bad guy.

d) Further discussion with him, brought up statements from him that were further cementing my believe that he is scum.

Maybe you'd better understand if you look at the whole thing, instead of clinging only on the very first part? I don't mind zak joking, I mind what it could imply and moreso I mind how he reacted.

[zakalwe]

I have not made him part-quote me to misrepresent my words

... and I haven't misrepresented your words. I'm quoting the parts of your post that I'm replying to or commenting on. Like above. Generally, I think that improves readability.

You are really reminding me why I shouldn't have signed up for this, after all.

I explained already that my theory was not that you tried to bait someone to vote you, but that you deliberately made your first statement in an attempt to have cover for when we try to verify what you said via the polygraph and only get a "undeterminable" result because you are scum and therefore under duress since game start. And when we get that undetermined result, you would refer back to this statement and explain with it the result.

So now your story is that I knew all along that I would "polygraph-scan" as "udeterminable" and therefore wanted to bait someone into putting me under duress, so I could point back to that duress and use it as an explanation? That still doesn't explain why you played right into my devious ploy by immediately putting me under duress. If I'm smart enough to devise that plan, you are also smart enough to dodge it.

As for coordinating powers, we should at least try to avoid that multiple players double up and use the sensor ability on the same lynch. But I'm not sure how to actually avoid that without going through a mass claim. One of the sensors could claim and volunteer to investigate the first lynch, but then he would probably be blocked and/or killed.

But actually, a mass claim may be the right way to break this wide open. If Lewwyn's "every power occurs twice among townies" theory is accurate, and we dismiss Rowain as a 3rd party, then scum can only fake claim 8 powers, total. So that leaves 6 powers whose claimants can be trusted. And actually, people who have claimed one of those 6 powers must be telling the truth about their other powers, too. We might be able to confirm almost everybody as innocent. Though maybe I'm missing something, because that seems too good to be true?

Cross-posting with Serdoa.

[zakalwe]

Seems like I parsed your story correctly, Serdoa. So again, why would you want to help me build an alibi?

Not really feeling the scum vibes at the moment, though. Unvote

Please point out any flaws in my mass claim plan if they exist. I'm off, for now.

[AdrienIer]

But actually, a mass claim may be the right way to break this wide open. If Lewwyn's "every power occurs twice among townies" theory is accurate, and we dismiss Rowain as a 3rd party, then scum can only fake claim 8 powers, total. So that leaves 6 powers whose claimants can be trusted. And actually, people who have claimed one of those 6 powers must be telling the truth about their other powers, too. We might be able to confirm almost everybody as innocent. Though maybe I'm missing something, because that seems too good to be true?

Is that how you want to play it ? Force a mass claim and look for people with 4 duplicates (Or more accurately triplicates) ? I'm already bored by the prospect.
Is there a reason why we'd be sure each program is accessed by two people and two only ? IIRC someone mentioned the possibility of the weaker programs being more widespread than the stronger ones.

[Serdoa]

You are really reminding me why I shouldn't have signed up for this, after all.

zak, this is an underhanded and unfair comment.

So now your story is that I knew all along that I would "polygraph-scan" as "udeterminable" and therefore wanted to bait someone into putting me under duress, so I could point back to that duress and use it as an explanation? That still doesn't explain why you played right into my devious ploy by immediately putting me under duress. If I'm smart enough to devise that plan, you are also smart enough to dodge it.

Because I think that you needed no one to play into your ploy, even asking you to state you are town would be enough after that starting statement. And again, it's less that this argument is so strong (it isn't, because it hinges in any case on what "under duress" even means), but it is the way you reacted to it that makes me wary.

But actually, a mass claim may be the right way to break this wide open. If Lewwyn's "every power occurs twice among townies" theory is accurate, and we dismiss Rowain as a 3rd party, then scum can only fake claim 8 powers, total. So that leaves 6 powers whose claimants can be trusted. And actually, people who have claimed one of those 6 powers must be telling the truth about their other powers, too. We might be able to confirm almost everybody as innocent. Though maybe I'm missing something, because that seems too good to be true?

Well, the PM looks like it is the same for scum and town. So maybe scum has the same ability-pool + night-kill. And as some abilities are clearly not useful for scum, they might also not be equally distributed. I don't know if it actually is an issue though in regards to claiming. We'd probably realize in any case if the abilities are not spread out as Lewwyn believes.

[Bacchus]

But how did he misrepresent your words? I also don't understand why you would vote for zak immediately after stating that doing so might put him under duress? Sure, maybe even asking the question is duress, but why run the risk of also voting for him?

Is this the explanation:

And that you could have done this [making a joke post on jettisoning random people] knowingly together with the possibility that you are forever undeterminable (when does duress stop? are scum generally under duress?) is enough for me to vote for you for now.

My comment in square brackets. There are so many caveats, "could have dones", "possibilities" and rhetorical questions there that it's hard even to read, much less to make sense of. And you have no trouble writing very clearly when you want to. This exactly would be the set-up -- write longwinded posts and weak comments full of caveats to then complain that they aren't quoted.

Maybe I'm failing to see something here, but the whole exchange between Serdoa and Zakalwe reads unnatural, if authentically aggressive.

I love it when someone implicitly calls me scum without actually doing so Bacchus. If you believe I am scum - and your accusations that I don't write clear even though I am able to and that my exchange with zak is unnatural clearly hint at that - then simply state it.

But anyhow, I'll try to explain my argument against zak to you more understandably.

a) I believe it is possible that scum is under duress from the start and that zak made his first post in an attempt to gain cover if we use the polygraph on him and get "undeterminable" as result.

b) At the start, I thought he might have set himself up with his post to become undeterminable. Later I realized that he also might be from the start undeterminable, as scum might be from the start under duress (see point a). So his post might actually not be a ruse to make himself undeterminable but to gain an alibi why he is undeterminable in the first place. Not questioning that would give us nothing to check via polygraph, questioning it can already be used as explanation why he was under duress.

c) When I questioned him, he answered in a fashion that I know from scum zak. That is not by actually deconstructing the argument and showing its flaws but by trying to paint me as the bad guy.

d) Further discussion with him, brought up statements from him that were further cementing my believe that he is scum.

Maybe you'd better understand if you look at the whole thing, instead of clinging only on the very first part? I don't mind zak joking, I mind what it could imply and moreso I mind how he reacted.

Thanks for the explanation, I've re-read the entire exchange between you and Zak a couple of times, and my judgement was on it on the whole. I think I can better understand now how it could have it arisen naturally, but you have to agree that point b) is pretty convoluted. I don't think I would ever have such a train of thought.

I am not calling you scum, both because it would not be substantiated and because I think unsubstantiated alignment calls are generally a bad thing for the town. I think its more normal and productive to voice suspicions and question, before making alignment calls. I would understand you demanding a vote from me, but an alignment call at this stage? I will go back and read your games to see what to make of this, any suggestions on which ones I should start with?

In the meantime, who would you question, Goreripper?