Ginza Madamisukai 2025-08-14
nishio The Murder Mystery I did today seemed to frustrate the guesser because of its low logical consistency, but as the culprit, it was convenient for me because it confused the discussion. It's hard to play the role of a murderer when the consistency is high. Well, I've played the "I'm suspicious of people who say they are the same after the fact" game by reading through the information with a high degree of logical consistency madamis, "If everyone discloses this, it will lead to the identification of the culprit", and then guessing other people's answers through logic and disclosing them before others disclose, so I think that's interesting.
nishio I think that the degree to which the role of the culprit becomes harder in a madamis society where many people have high logical thinking skills, when it is the madamis with high logical consistency. nishio go to fight with a handicap on the opponent, the chasing side tries to make the best of it when the opponent makes a mistake by making the board mistake inducing. If we replace this with madamis, we try to cause as much confusion as possible, and then reward the wrong guesses made by others and not draw attention to the right guesses.
nishio The reason is not yet clear, but the observed fact is that Geister. and Madamis' culprit role has a high win rate Nishio nishio I understand the feelings of machines better than humans, so the more logical my opponent thinks, the easier it is to play him, and conversely, the more aggressive his facial expressions and behavior are, the weaker he is. If this assumption is correct, then you can ignore what I say and focus only on the illogical signals. That would certainly be a hard thing to do when they do it... nishio It's a hard feeling when people say, "You're only agreeing with or asking questions after someone else has deduced something, but you haven't deduced it yourself or refuted it." nishio Oh, are you unknowingly doing this Paul Graham "Don't regard the claims of others as attacks and don't defend or refute them, simply go through the motions"? Subsequent chats
Something out of my consciousness.
Scrutiny takes a back seat.
Good at getting the information out in a way that doesn't look suspicious.
Don't slouch when pursued.
AI's idea of countermeasures is "intensive fire from the beginning" and "meta-reading."
Concentrated fire from the beginning is a terrible w
I can't help it if a lie that was pursued and told in the absence of information is debunked by "information card release" or "testimony of multiple people"...
I don't know why scrutiny takes a back seat, but maybe I'm behaving in a way that the "topic of the place" doesn't become me, although I don't do it very consciously.
The culprits are not comfortable with the attention, questions, and peripheral information they receive.
When someone makes a hypothesis, and it is contrary to the facts they know, it is useful for that hypothesis to be pursued.
When someone who is not you is pursued by that hypothesis, he or she begins to refute it, making it even more useful.
If two people do battle, others think one of them is the culprit.
Similar nuance to "out of consciousness."
When you allow the focus of the discussion to go where it is not you, you are out of focus.
He's good at getting the information out in a way that doesn't raise suspicions."
Basically, if you give it out after being asked, it's neutral; if you jam it up after being asked, it's negative; if you disclose the information before being asked, it's positive.
If everyone is in the process of disclosing something, avoid Billi.
Billi is negative whether it is conflicted or not.
If the information given first conflicts with information given later by another person, one of them will be suspicious, two choices, and we want to avoid this.
But putting it off for fear of the risk of conflicts is a negative in itself.
I can't refute the criticism that you asked all of them and then answered the one that didn't contradict.
Sometimes there is no solution that is consistent when you hear everyone's.
I'd rather answer quickly and contradict one person than the other.
But it's rather hard when you contradict two people.
We don't want everyone to be in the process of disclosing in the first place.
against the culprit
I hope someone other than the culprit is negative about the disclosure.
I'm hoping the trend will be to avoid disclosing everyone, but if it looks like it won't work, I'll disclose before that person does. w
He doesn't slouch when pursued."
I guess there are things to do...
Possible Patterns
1: Once you know it's the killer, you've created a false story.
In his mind, he's not lying, he's answering as a fact he's aware of (something different from the true facts).
I can confidently say, "This is how I perceive it," even if I am in conflict with others, because it is true that I perceive it that way.
2: Instead of lying on the spot, say something like, "Eh, wait a minute, I remember," and check the handout.
And if the answer is, "Well, I'm not sure," then I don't think I wrote it.
If you take your time for a while to begin with, someone else will start talking and you'll fly by.
His sincere attempt to check the handout reflects "culpability."
3: Actually slouching, but looking imposing, just as someone who is used to giving presentations can look nervous but not nervous.
I think logical consistency is about using logic to identify the culprit in the first place, but that's just barely enough because if you point to the culprit with too many simple pieces of evidence, it's not a game.
If it's on the edge, it's easy to break.
A few clues are being held, or you're so confident that you're mixing up misinformation (just remember and remind yourself that someone else made the wrong inference without you having to flush it out).
If the author finds a possibility that hasn't been erased, it's hard to narrow it down.
It is very useful that person X, who is not you, may raise incorrect possibilities in an attempt to clear your suspicions that X is the culprit.
If someone contradicts it, it becomes a battle for someone who isn't you.
If no one refutes it, then there is a consensus that it exists as a possibility.
A common method "Is there a possibility of suicide or accident? Is it explicitly ruled out in the rule book?"
If the voting rules have voting instructions for suicide or accidents, we can increase the options by making that clear.
Is it true that the information is true?"
Every word has several interpretations.
There are N-1 clues that exclude one person.
Once there are two or three people who are not excluded, someone starts to defend themselves.
We just need to be able to break that self-defense logic.
Attention-seekers self-destruct.
In retrospect, I think I might be better at remembering and recycling false claims made by others rather than lying myself!
So I'm vulnerable if I get stuffed before others get it wrong.
---
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/銀座マダミス会2025-08-14 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.