Story Post: Trial: Why Josh is an Android
Cannot be passed after 48 hours, with 4 votes against and none for. Josh
Adminned at 18 Feb 2015 22:38:06 UTC
I accuse Josh of being an Android.
Evidence that Josh is an Android (ancient to recent):
- Josh was accused before, by Bucky. Bucky got Disabled by an Android phaser shot, possibly to stop him posting the Trial again. Bucky’s reasoning was that Josh was responsible for the Mark-flushing that lead to ayesdeeef’s Disablement (and the Marking mechanic in general), and that Marking is basically impossible to track, reasoning that still applies. Interestingly, the FOR voters included all of the players with lowest Clearance. These players are statistically more likely to be Human; an Android would be unlikely to Sabotage a Mission (and their own winning chances along with it), although it’s possible that there are Androids among those players who didn’t dare to derelict the mission and reduce their Clearance penalty.
- As of the 12/02 03:38 GNDT update, Josh was actually in the lead for low Clearance, tied with Sylphrena, Bucky and Darknight. He’s allowed that lead to be thrown away via Mediator actions and via allowing ties to change his Clearance (admittedly, the latter is only weak evidence, because it’s mostly due to quick thinking on the part of Sylphrena). This is very counterintuitive behaviour for a Human.
- Josh accuses me of being an Android with some very interesting arguments. He constructs a narrative based on reduced Android activity while I’d been gone, something I hadn’t actually noticed. Combining this with the retroactive veto means that it looks a bit like there was an intentional attempt to frame me. If so, Josh is most likely behind it.
- Josh votes AGAINST on a Demand, despite being well aware (his EVC shows the awareness) that doing so will increase his Clearance. This would have been trivial to avoid; it’s not like Josh’s vote was needed to fail the proposal. His policy of ignoring Mediator effects is bizarre and makes no sense for a Human; you have a choice of Clearances, just pick the lower one, that is literally the only difference between AGAINST and no vote. (Voting FOR would also have been possible, and risky because the proposal would be passing but not quorumed. I requested an admin to fail the proposal immediately because I was worried about a potential last minute CoV, forcing the proposal to pass, especially with players idling; people rarely pay attention to proposals deep in the queue.)
- Josh suggested that Bucky shot himself, which would be a completely crazy thing for an Android to do. In my experience in Werewolf games, the people suggesting crazy theories are normally the Werewolves (because they have more information as to what happened and can rule out more possibilities; the Humans tend to consider more sensible theories in crazy situations because they have less information with which to rule the sensible ones out).
- Josh votes AGAINST my proposal here that lets players get rid of unwanted Command Roles. If Human, the Mediator is one of the players who would benefit the most from this proposal, because Mediator effects are much more likely to increase clearance than decrease it (something that’s borne out by the historical record). In effect, Josh is expressing the opinion that he wants to keep getting free Clearance, while not benefitting the Humans in any way from this. In other words, he’s an Android.
For balance, evidence that Josh is Human (also worth reviewing, to make sure we aren’t making a mistake):
- From GNDT history: When Bucky got shot, Josh and Bucky had just finished a little argument in the GNDT over the use of Marks. If Bucky had got shot during the argument, it’d look very bad for Josh, but Josh seems less likely to have taken the shot, given the circumstances. (Although Bucky was the main person pushing for Josh’s Disabling.)
- Josh had a deciding vote on the proposal to make it harder for Brendan to reach the Human victory; a CoV by him would have failed the proposal. In addition to making it harder for Brendan to reach the Human victory, it also makes it easier for him to reach the Android victory. It’s possible that Josh was just trying to avoid suspicion, or that he was somehow sure that Brendan was Human. It’s also possible that he was a Human and hoping to dissuade Brendan from rostering, so as to be able to reduce Clearance. (This is incompatible with his behaviour with Mediator, though.)
I think this is easily strong enough evidence for an Accusation. (Also, I’m unwilling to Disable players by trial if I think they have a reasonable chance of being Human, because then they’d be ahead of me in the Clearance race. So I’m not going to post one of these unless I’m pretty sure.)
Josh: he/they
Basically every post you’ve made over the past week has included some variation on the words “Josh is an Android”, so I’m not going to attempt to argue with you. I’ll answer the points then try to avoid threadsitting.
There’s two main responses I’m going to make here, one broad, one narrow. The broad one is that ais and I have different philosophies for this dynasty, and that informs, I think, our mutual accusations. He’s pursuing a maximalist strategy around optimising his own personal victory, and that’s fine. I’m not interested in my own personal victory here, so points 2, 4 and 6 are all irrelevant, as well as the second point in my favour. I treat werewolf as a logic puzzle and enjoy it for the process of working out who the werewolves are. That’s it. I’m not interested in clearance, I’m not interested in personal victory, I’m interested in how people respond to the situation in which they find themselves and how that exhibits itself in terms of mechanical interactions.
Post his trial, I’m increasingly unsure that ais is an Android - but it is clear that regardless of our roles, we’re playing entirely different games. That’s fine, but it doesn’t say anything at all about our respective roles.
The narrower point is around ais’ point 3, which is apparently when he became convinced that I was an Android. Basically, what ais is accusing me of here is noticing something that he didn’t, something that took place during a period in which he was idle. There’s a number of ways to approach that as an accusation, including (but not limited to) “why do you think you have a monopoly on keeping track of stuff”? If the challenge here is that I somehow dug deep and managed to match, even if only briefly, the Sherlockian powers of ais, then I have some more evidence to incriminate myself with because I’m quite sure that it’s not the only thing that I’ve noticed that he hasn’t.
The point I was making in that trial was not indefensible. I won’t rehash it - the trail didn’t succeed and that’s fair enough. But Occam’s Razor plays a part here. As I said in my accusation against him, what’s more likely? That the Androids, led by me, imposed a deliberate and self-restricting moratorium on public actions just to set up one player who might not come back? Or that the lack of actions and the idle period coincided because the player taking the actions and the player who was idle were one and the same? I may have rhetorically over-egged the pudding by not conceding that it could have been a coincidence, but given that this was apparently the incident that set ais off, and thus the accident that has informed all of his confirmation bias instincts ever since, it’s important to note that my initial crime here is a) noticing a thing and b) drawing a logically sustainable inference from it.
That leaves 1 and 5. 5 is misleading - I was responding to Darknight’s point, not making one of my own, and as that post suggests I consider it to be quite an aûtre possibility, albeit one that is technically legal. 1 is unanswerable, but to say that the shot itself is meaningless in terms of evidence, as it is precisely as plausible to have been a false flag as a real response to the trial.
I am very aware that many players have decided that I am an Android. I hope that those players will note that I have not flushed marks since, and that my proposals since the last trial have been mostly somewhere between constructive and administrative. I hope that they will also note that of ais’ six points above, not one speaks to an actual hostile motivation. Most of them, as discussed, are around ais not understanding that not everybody is constantly motivated by the impulse to attack a high score. The rest are highly stretched interpretations of very ambiguous actions.