KJ likes everyone, Umami feels like she’s looking for permission to scumread me and Sloth... look at this:
-quote-
He calls himself noncommittal. Now iso him and read what he writes about me.
He is committed to the read in his words, but he doesn’t realise that because he knows the read is wrong.
Boi no
Why's KJ liking everyone a bad thing?
Noted on Umami, though not sure that's AI for her. Wouldn't call it "permission" either, more hedging.
As for #87...like.
1) That is exactly what you said, I don't see what words I put on your mouth. Your meaning was not "obvious."
2) Never said spies would try to wiggle their way in. I definitely don't think they'd want to avoid being on the team, which is what your statement indicated you thought. Don't...put words in my mouth
3) Dude if you need me to explain to you why town would want to be in the team, I charge by the hour. It's NAI - wanting to be in the team means nothing.
Do you tunnel as either alignment? One more than the other?
Also, I don't know why early commitment to reads is viewed as such a town trait--I know a lot of people use this as an indicator but to me it just doesn't make sense and is easy to fake. Rhand, I also know you're supposed to be great at reading people, so I don't want to dismiss your reads but I also don't want to blindly trust them, especially with no explanation because I assume you're good at being scum too. I'm not someone who thinks I can solve right out of the gate and I think by doing that you probably become more invested in proving yourself right than actually figuring it out. I'm an easy bus--it's something that's become abundantly clear to me. As town, at least online, I can't talk my way out of a mislynch. I assume you can talk your way out of anything. Why in the world would I set up a situation for you against me? There's a 50% chance you're scum--I'm not going to give you a pass and blindly trust you even though I know you can easily get others to dismiss me. Why would you want me to?
@GJ: that’s what I was saying all along. Spies don’t care. Which makes Vaimes not a spy.
You can still try to be in a team without caring - even more so, really. I honestly don't follow this line of thought of yours.
Like I can see the truth in your statements and your clarification on on #87 about what you meant in #21 actually makes some sense when comparing the 2, but it's a selective view too. It's like those BELIEVE shirt: Sure, if you're narrowed down on a specific point, you see the word lie, but branching out to see the whole picture reveals believe.
[quote from="Slothful »" url="/forums/community-forums/mafia/816994-resistance-voting-1-1?comment=102"Was the bolded in response to anything specific?[/quote]
I mean, not really--it's just a general pattern I've seen (outside of this game too) and something I've been accused of before, so I guess it's just me being defensive and questioning why people use this as a litmus test. Looking back, I think it was mostly in response to Killjoy’s #76#78 (saying I’m not really asserting any opinions and am noncommittal, which I interpret as due to me not tunneling someone immediately) and then Rhand basically saying the same thing in #86 because I’m considering the possibility of him being scum without committing to a scumread.
@Sloth: Yeah, I was trying to achieve "wait on shadow, try not to tell him what he should think". In hindsight, it was probably very infeasible to tell the whole game to not talk about the first mission before shadow gets back since there's... really nothing else to talk about. I guess that result was probably too much to hope for.
And yeah, I know it taints Shadow but he was already tainted to the point that I didn't feel like it mattered anymore if he get tainted more.
You seem to understand what I meant when I said I wasn't explicit.
Umami: It's not that there's something I feel you should explicitly commit to... its like... you keep having situations where you could commit, but don't. Like GJ said, it's eyebrow-worthy.
Like, it's natural to commit. We think things, have opinions when we read things. You're just... not. Which is what I'm trying to say there.
Rhand: I do agree that you're overthinking quite a bit, and that you're missing the forest for the trees. There really isn't enough info to make solid judgements, and behavior isn't really telling in this game.
I'm a little curious where you got the impression that I "like everyone"? Talk about that a bit for me.
@Shadow: There's some discussions going on. Some about Umami, some about Rhand, some about me. Do you have thoughts on those?
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
@Sloth: Umami: It's not that there's something I feel you should explicitly commit to... its like... you keep having situations where you could commit, but don't. Like GJ said, it's eyebrow-worthy.
Like, it's natural to commit. We think things, have opinions when we read things. You're just... not. Which is what I'm trying to say there.
To me, resistance is different than mafia, so I don't understand why everyone is trying to make it mafia. We get nominations, voting patterns, mission results--why would I not use that and why would I commit this early when I have so little information. That said, I've seen in mafia people commit super early to reads and there's this huge pressure to generate early reads, and sometimes they're right but so often they're wrong. So often my early reads are wrong--it's not something I'm particularly good at and it's not something I enjoy doing. Especially when I don't even have patterns yet. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. For context, I love Avalon--I love how the roles add complexity. I may be a loyal servant of arthur and I may know nothing, but I can't show that to the bad guys because there's an assassin and, even though I know nothing, I have to convince the bad guys that I may actually be Merlin. There's a huge drive towards not making early read mistakes. And, yes, this game doesn't have that drive and maybe it doesn't matter if I'm wrong so long as I'm able to adapt and change my read later with new information, but projecting confidence in a read I don't feel certain of when I'm going to have a lot more information shortly just isn't something that's natural for me.
Killjoy, you're asking questions/pseudo-engaging with people, I assume you have opinions on things and think things, but you haven't really shared any of that. What are you committing to?
@Umami can't speak for others, but to me it comes down to mafia being what I use to and what I know, hence me trying to look for parallels while I get used to the 'new normal' as it were.
Things are super quiet and I crave stimuli...I'm hoping we can get this team passed/failed quick cause I would like some more data.
Rhand is jumping to conclusions that aren't necessarily true, which is a thing he does. It's NAI.
Shadow, I like how much he's thinking ahead with 62. I like the... efficiency he's trying to achieve with his plan. I'm willing to vote with it.
Umami as I said is coming off as noncommital initially. Could be a thing, but we'll see I guess.
GJ is sitting back and analyzing stuff, which is a thing he does. It's NAI.
Vaimes is doing stuff, and is fine?
Sloth also doing things, and is also fine?
I do not think that volunteering to be in the first mission is telling at all unless it fails.
It's a starting point.
You're right though, this isn't Mafia. It is, though, a [game of deception] with [team that secretly knows their teammates] who are trying to defeat the [uninformed majority]. We're always gonna look for ways to solve them similarly since mafia is what we know.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
Wait, what? You guys vote for the first mission to go? Why would you ever do that?
Usually the only people who vote "no" on the first mission are people who make a point of voting no for any mission they aren't personally on.
But if there's a specifc strategy-related reason we should've voted no [and risked prolonging the "zero info aside from the negative votes" phase of the game], the floor is yours.
Well, it's easier in an in person game, but seeing who people choose to go on their mission (without actually having it) and then their responses to pressure to defend their choice is generally very helpful to me--especially in terms of retrospectively analyzing voting patterns and how people are interacting with each other. I was going to vote no until Vaimes' mission, even on my own nomination. This works better when you're relatively speedy with nomination votes so it's not incredibly painful and boring, but the games I've lost as town were pretty much always ones where bad guys were able to have fewer nominations go through, we got less information and weren't able to find potential connections/interactions through voting patterns, and it was a quick game. I doing fewer nominations pretty much always helps the bad guys, especially the 2 person mission. Now we have the classic, first mission passed (which means nothing) so run it again + 1 and essentially the only information we have is the same information we had before the mission.
If anyone wants to discuss live lmk--also had a stats revelation yesterday (it's really not that insightful, but I thought it was cool because it changed the way I was default thinking about mission 1), that I didn't want to mention before mission 1 passed
@Sloth was playing games and seeing close family. So what thoughts do you have on your proposal?
Happy Easter y’all.
happy happy. Also that's really nice!
Meaning you/me/vaimes? Considering it. Not proposing anything just yet.
@all what are each of your thoughts on shadow's idea.
@grape do I have a deadline?
No, not meaning you/me/Vaimes. I’m specifically asking your thoughts. Kinda miffed you’re calling that “my idea” the whole point of taking you was to force you to make an actual decision.
Umami why didn’t you talk about that doing more nominations thing earlier?
Because I've never played where the default was to just approve the first nomination--I just assumed we were all rejecting it except for maybe 1-2 people
I don't see a reason to reject the first mission unless you have some reason to believe it will fail, which 99.9% of the time you wouldn't.
Someone asked about my feelings about Shadow's proposal. I believe I already answered that but, I like how much he's thinking ahead with it and how efficient it is.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
There's an 80% chance there's a bad guy on the first mission. Granted, that doesn't mean I have a reason to believe it will fail, but it does mean that it doesn't give me any useable information if it passes. You guys think there's little information to gain by seeing who everyone chooses as a partner--I think there is valuable information. There's no increase risk in terms of the first mission failing by having more nominations but there is potential information gain, so to me it's a very clear risk/benefit.
In any case your 99.9% argument is not at all based in fact...
It doesn't always work out like this, but pretty often one person will become the default nomination--sometimes that's shadow, sometimes that's sloth, but when 5 people (4, if the person selected also nominates) just go with selecting the same person, there's a more random chance that person is town
There's an 80% chance there's a bad guy on the first mission. Granted, that doesn't mean I have a reason to believe it will fail, but it does mean that it doesn't give me any useable information if it passes. You guys think there's little information to gain by seeing who everyone chooses as a partner--I think there is valuable information. There's no increase risk in terms of the first mission failing by having more nominations but there is potential information gain, so to me it's a very clear risk/benefit.
In any case your 99.9% argument is not at all based in fact...
Sure, but the bad guy doesn't want it to fail. They want to bne put on a mission where there is more doubt. Failing the first mission creates a dichotomy where either him, or the other guy won't ever be trusted. Sometimes both.
I like what Umami is saying, but sinc eit’s after the fact, I have no idea what to think about it :/
yeah, it's not helpful at this point, I was just genuinely surprised. More just think you should try it next game. Also, my default is and will continue to be no for nominations
There's an 80% chance there's a bad guy on the first mission. Granted, that doesn't mean I have a reason to believe it will fail, but it does mean that it doesn't give me any useable information if it passes. You guys think there's little information to gain by seeing who everyone chooses as a partner--I think there is valuable information. There's no increase risk in terms of the first mission failing by having more nominations but there is potential information gain, so to me it's a very clear risk/benefit.
In any case your 99.9% argument is not at all based in fact...
I mean, those numbers are gonna be high for every mission. Mission 1 is technically the least likely to have a bad in it.
I can't argue 'trying to get more information out of a stone' though, so I'll concede to you on this point.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
There's an 80% chance there's a bad guy on the first mission. Granted, that doesn't mean I have a reason to believe it will fail, but it does mean that it doesn't give me any useable information if it passes. You guys think there's little information to gain by seeing who everyone chooses as a partner--I think there is valuable information. There's no increase risk in terms of the first mission failing by having more nominations but there is potential information gain, so to me it's a very clear risk/benefit.
In any case your 99.9% argument is not at all based in fact...
Sure, but the bad guy doesn't want it to fail. They want to bne put on a mission where there is more doubt. Failing the first mission creates a dichotomy where either him, or the other guy won't ever be trusted. Sometimes both.
Yeah, but in terms of probability, we already know that, so yeah it's forcing the pool from 6 to 2 but in terms of the probability it's just excluding the world where both of them are town, which is only 20% of worlds so it's not something I'm buying into either way. Either way, I agree that there's a general rule of thumb that first mission always passes (we've already covered that earlier), which is why we get no information out of the results of the first mission. What I'm saying is that the nominations alone give us information. Anyway, as Rhand pointed out, it's after the fact so it's not super helpful. In my game group, default for avalon is always no and it's something I think is objectively better, but I get why you guys might think it's not worth the time. I think it goes to the playing mafia in a resistance format thing, which isn't inherently bad it's just not a style I'm used to
@KJ: When you post, the loading thing looks like a pacman. Well sometimes, it just stays like that for me, so I have to hit refresh while after a while and hope it goes through. I had two tabs doing that to me at once.
@Unami: I would literally just take the first mission out of your mind, and not care alignment wise based on who was on the mission, unless it was failed. Failed is more interesting, but as it passed, cool, move on. The next nominations/missions will actually give analysis to read into.
Boi no
Why's KJ liking everyone a bad thing?
Noted on Umami, though not sure that's AI for her. Wouldn't call it "permission" either, more hedging.
As for #87...like.
1) That is exactly what you said, I don't see what words I put on your mouth. Your meaning was not "obvious."
2) Never said spies would try to wiggle their way in. I definitely don't think they'd want to avoid being on the team, which is what your statement indicated you thought. Don't...put words in my mouth
3) Dude if you need me to explain to you why town would want to be in the team, I charge by the hour. It's NAI - wanting to be in the team means nothing.
Do you tunnel as either alignment? One more than the other?
Like I can see the truth in your statements and your clarification on on #87 about what you meant in #21 actually makes some sense when comparing the 2, but it's a selective view too. It's like those BELIEVE shirt: Sure, if you're narrowed down on a specific point, you see the word lie, but branching out to see the whole picture reveals believe.
Your arguments are coming from a place of "lie"
See? Typos like this keep me approachable and endearing. I'm adorable.
I mean, not really--it's just a general pattern I've seen (outside of this game too) and something I've been accused of before, so I guess it's just me being defensive and questioning why people use this as a litmus test. Looking back, I think it was mostly in response to Killjoy’s #76#78 (saying I’m not really asserting any opinions and am noncommittal, which I interpret as due to me not tunneling someone immediately) and then Rhand basically saying the same thing in #86 because I’m considering the possibility of him being scum without committing to a scumread.
And yeah, I know it taints Shadow but he was already tainted to the point that I didn't feel like it mattered anymore if he get tainted more.
You seem to understand what I meant when I said I wasn't explicit.
Umami: It's not that there's something I feel you should explicitly commit to... its like... you keep having situations where you could commit, but don't. Like GJ said, it's eyebrow-worthy.
Like, it's natural to commit. We think things, have opinions when we read things. You're just... not. Which is what I'm trying to say there.
Rhand: I do agree that you're overthinking quite a bit, and that you're missing the forest for the trees. There really isn't enough info to make solid judgements, and behavior isn't really telling in this game.
I'm a little curious where you got the impression that I "like everyone"? Talk about that a bit for me.
@Shadow: There's some discussions going on. Some about Umami, some about Rhand, some about me. Do you have thoughts on those?
To me, resistance is different than mafia, so I don't understand why everyone is trying to make it mafia. We get nominations, voting patterns, mission results--why would I not use that and why would I commit this early when I have so little information. That said, I've seen in mafia people commit super early to reads and there's this huge pressure to generate early reads, and sometimes they're right but so often they're wrong. So often my early reads are wrong--it's not something I'm particularly good at and it's not something I enjoy doing. Especially when I don't even have patterns yet. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. For context, I love Avalon--I love how the roles add complexity. I may be a loyal servant of arthur and I may know nothing, but I can't show that to the bad guys because there's an assassin and, even though I know nothing, I have to convince the bad guys that I may actually be Merlin. There's a huge drive towards not making early read mistakes. And, yes, this game doesn't have that drive and maybe it doesn't matter if I'm wrong so long as I'm able to adapt and change my read later with new information, but projecting confidence in a read I don't feel certain of when I'm going to have a lot more information shortly just isn't something that's natural for me.
Killjoy, you're asking questions/pseudo-engaging with people, I assume you have opinions on things and think things, but you haven't really shared any of that. What are you committing to?
@Umami can't speak for others, but to me it comes down to mafia being what I use to and what I know, hence me trying to look for parallels while I get used to the 'new normal' as it were.
Things are super quiet and I crave stimuli...I'm hoping we can get this team passed/failed quick cause I would like some more data.
You're right though, this isn't Mafia. It is, though, a [game of deception] with [team that secretly knows their teammates] who are trying to defeat the [uninformed majority]. We're always gonna look for ways to solve them similarly since mafia is what we know.
I too long for more info
Proposal 1.1 has passed
Shadow nominated himself and Sloth for the mission
Yes (6): GJ, KJ, Rhand, Sloth, Shadow, Vaimes
No (1): Umami
The mission is successful! It is now proposal 2.1. It is Sloth's turn to nominate.
Happy Easter y’all.
Also Happy Easter everyone
Meaning you/me/vaimes? Considering it. Not proposing anything just yet.
@all what are each of your thoughts on shadow's idea.
@grape do I have a deadline?
But if there's a specifc strategy-related reason we should've voted no [and risked prolonging the "zero info aside from the negative votes" phase of the game], the floor is yours.
I would like to be on the next mission, with Rhand + Sloth.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Because I've never played where the default was to just approve the first nomination--I just assumed we were all rejecting it except for maybe 1-2 people
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Someone asked about my feelings about Shadow's proposal. I believe I already answered that but, I like how much he's thinking ahead with it and how efficient it is.
In any case your 99.9% argument is not at all based in fact...
Sure, but the bad guy doesn't want it to fail. They want to bne put on a mission where there is more doubt. Failing the first mission creates a dichotomy where either him, or the other guy won't ever be trusted. Sometimes both.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
yeah, it's not helpful at this point, I was just genuinely surprised. More just think you should try it next game. Also, my default is and will continue to be no for nominations
I can't argue 'trying to get more information out of a stone' though, so I'll concede to you on this point.
*shows Rebel secret handshake*
The GJ way path to no lynching:
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Yeah, but in terms of probability, we already know that, so yeah it's forcing the pool from 6 to 2 but in terms of the probability it's just excluding the world where both of them are town, which is only 20% of worlds so it's not something I'm buying into either way. Either way, I agree that there's a general rule of thumb that first mission always passes (we've already covered that earlier), which is why we get no information out of the results of the first mission. What I'm saying is that the nominations alone give us information. Anyway, as Rhand pointed out, it's after the fact so it's not super helpful. In my game group, default for avalon is always no and it's something I think is objectively better, but I get why you guys might think it's not worth the time. I think it goes to the playing mafia in a resistance format thing, which isn't inherently bad it's just not a style I'm used to
@Unami: I would literally just take the first mission out of your mind, and not care alignment wise based on who was on the mission, unless it was failed. Failed is more interesting, but as it passed, cool, move on. The next nominations/missions will actually give analysis to read into.
The GJ way path to no lynching: