|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:15:20 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Jul 27, 2010 7:15:20 GMT -5
.....you put in an extra player, probably a wolf or freemason; because who's going to contradict you? The other freemasons can expose you but they'd have to know who to expose first, and the wolves can hardly claim publicly. I see your point, but you don't know all the facts. I do, on the other hand. First of all, I know that I didn't alter the list in any way, so that's one person who knows you're wrong. Secondly, the seven wolves all know I'm not one of them...so that's eight people who now know your theories are wrong. And lastly, the Freemasons all know I'm not a part of them, and that there are only three of them...so that brings us to a grand total of... wait for it... ....11 people who all know your hypothosis' are wrong. 11. 11 compared to just you, who doesn't know (or claims to not know) all the facts. Course, if you're really a wolf, you already know this. And again...if I were a Freemason (I'm not) and someone else posted that list and had extra numbers in the Freemason category, you can BET I'd say something. I wouldn't reveal my other team mates but sacrifice myself just to get a lying scum on the FIRST DAY? Hell, yes! Idle, I don't believe the freemasons know who each other are at the start of the game. So the number of freemasons you posted means nothing to them. Yes, they will be a role on your list, but suppose for example that you decreased the number of cabal, but increased the number of freemasons, then everyone could honestly say yes to the question "is my role on the list", but it would still not be accurate (although the cabal would know the numbers were off).
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:19:13 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 27, 2010 7:19:13 GMT -5
If I get a "yes" from everyone, that accounts for every single role on my list, exact..don't you see? So, how about it, Moley? I am on your list. But even if everyone says the same thing, it doesn't prove anything about your list. Folks will lie. The only thing that will prove anything at all about your list is your death and the subsequent revelation of your alignment. But that's OK. It's Day One. We don't need confirmation of your list right now; it's a useful data point, and future data will either make it seem more or less believable as we roll along. Stop worrying about forcing confirmation - it's just eating up time and conversation. Your info is out there, and it will be confirmed (or not) in good time. That said, the fact that Idle's list cannot be confirmed doesn't make Idle suspicious in and of itself. The votes for him are really strange. More in a moment, after I respond to something else.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:21:37 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 27, 2010 7:21:37 GMT -5
Unvote: Eureka Bleah. I can't believe we needed two Witches to claim to get that done with. WTF?
Honestly, I'm tempted to vote for Idle Thoughts too. Mostly because his tirade is annoying and ill-timed. For a week now we've been dancing around the notion that most everyone is tacitly confirming the list, but that there might be those that don't want to confront Idle Thoughts for whatever reason. So now he decides to circumvent anyone who might want to be silent on the issue by pushing a poll... in the last 24 hours. Don't you think we have more important issues to attend to? Not that we can't do both at the same time, but seriously. It's stupid. If someone didn't want to confront Idle last Wednesday, why do you think they want to confront you now? The list isn't important right now. The veracity of the list will be important at endgame. Right now is the beginning of the game.
But I'm not going to vote for Idle Thoughts, because it is a stupid vote. I explicitly decline from participating in Idle Thoughts's poll because his poll is stupid.
I would like those that are still nit-picking my metagame strategy to re-read storyteller's post about how all arguments focus discussion on a subset of players by definition. Despite your protests, the thing that is bothering you is the metagame aspect, because other than that, there really isn't any difference between what I said and being suspicious of X and Y because they voted for Z.
I'll also point you to the Terminator game where a role PM snafu caused a game reset which opened a metagame opportunity. Two players self identified as having previously held scum roles prior to the reset. Based on their reactions to questioning about their previous roles, I concluded that one was scum and the other was town. I was correct.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:22:28 GMT -5
Post by MentalGuy on Jul 27, 2010 7:22:28 GMT -5
bufftabby: As I said, you are not really my first choice for a lynch, but I did feel that your responses were evasive and overly defensive, and that your vote on Idle was weak. If I were going to be around today, I would hold off on voting you and see what happened, but my vote right now is more saying I am not really against your lynch and I want to be certain there is a lynch than it is that you are definitely the player I want lynched. The more I read BillMc's replies to Sach, the more I would like to see BillMc lynched, but I can only vote for him once.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:22:51 GMT -5
Post by Duvsie on Jul 27, 2010 7:22:51 GMT -5
I’d like to think that somebodys past preferences in a conspiracy game has no bearing on this one and whilst the info on the past few games is in the public domain, I feel it unfair to judge somebody in this game because of it, so I for one am unwilling to vote another player purely for their preferences in a previous role. Onto Idle. I’m on that list, though there is nothing to say that everyone will say they are, even if they’re not. I think posting a list like that so early on points slightly more towards him being town, rather than not. If he was scum and the list is correct, then he wouldn’t have needed to post it anyway, as they’d have valuable information that surely they’d be better off not sharing with town. Unless, they wanted to see whether the list was true or not, so published it in the hope of having it verified, also a possibility. Though I’m not sure why Idle garnered extra information and no one else appears to have done. Things are also made more difficult by the late reveal that we’re facing, so even when dead we won’t know if he’s truly being honest until one day/night or night/day cycle has passed.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:34:50 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 27, 2010 7:34:50 GMT -5
Very well and good then. When I die, you'll see how wrong you are. The list is exact, true, and not tampered with, changed, or falsified. Even if I were lying and what you say is true..then I'd have just changed one of the things, right? That means all the rest of it is true and the only made up role would be my own....to which, of course, I'd say "Oh yes, that's my role!" So any way you cut it.... All the roles on the list would be accounted for if everyone confirmed they were on itIrrespective of your alignment, your dying does not prove the authenticity or accuracy of the list. As MHaye has already mentioned, it could have been manipulated in many ways. Even if everyone says "yes I am on it", it does not validate anything - folk could be lying, or there may only be two detectives when you have said there is three etc. And even if you believe the information you have is correct, Pleo has not publically confirmed it as correct - Pleo may have seeded false information. I still can't fathom the timing of your information - had there been a mass claim, then revealing your information afterwards would have been of considerable benefit to town, but revealing it up prevents non-town from being caught out by claiming roles supposedly not in the game. I also agree with MHaye's point about accepting this as a working document and cross referencing against it as the game goes on, but you are pushing it too hard, you want it taken as gospel when there is no way it can be proven as totally accurate
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:36:35 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 27, 2010 7:36:35 GMT -5
Firstly, a choice did not have to be made - your theory rests on folk making a choice to be scum in this game. storyteller has already established this as his defense. Is this a problem somehow? I never said it was conclusive evidence. I said it was evidence, which it is. This notion that evidence is only valid if it is proof positive is, I believe the in vogue SDMB term is "strawman," off-base. Are you going to reject all other arguments because they aren't conclusive evidence? Coordinating for this specific game would require additional, contemporary communication, which would be cheating. Furthermore, if you dug up posts on me and found posts indicating my preference for roles in games then that would be valid evidence. How can you say they are completely independent events? Do you even know what independence means? Your example is iid, but simply saying that X is like Y doesn't PROVE that X is like Y. Are you saying that I can prove iid simply by drawing an analogy to an iid process? BTW, if a coin "flipped heads 49 out of the last 50 times," then you HAVE FUCKING EVIDENCE THAT IT IS NOT A FAIR COIN, which is the entire point.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:45:02 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 27, 2010 7:45:02 GMT -5
I take that back. It occurs to me that being a witch is exceedingly stressful. I know I wouldn't deal well with such stresses.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:47:06 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 27, 2010 7:47:06 GMT -5
Two things, both for sach, and then a closer look at the Idle votes: So do I invoke "PIS sensitivity" as a scum tell or not? Hmmm. Oh why not, at the very least I can see if I can get storyteller's POV on this now that the ugliness of Cecil Pond is behind us. Vote: nphase [/color] I suppose I should be more explicit on what I mean. In Cecil Pond, Drain Bead (who I don't believe is in this game, but is very very good at finding scum on Day One), focused on Rysto (I think) for his latching onto an instance of apparent PIS. I called bullshit. Drain Bead explained her reasoning, that in her experience scum are more likely to latch onto apparent PIS. I looked up a case I remembered where I (Town) was getting beat up over an apparent PIS slip and realized that every player that was jumping on it was scum. Town players were rather cool to the offense. Also, in Cecil Pond, Drain Bead was correct, Rysto was scum. *PIS: Perfect Information Syndrome[/quote] Missed this. I still maintain that developing a theory about something like this based on one data point is arguing from the conclusion you want to reach instead of actually checking the data. Admittedly, the Cecil Pond game actually makes two data points. But during Cecil Pond I knew I had a counter point but couldn't for the life of me remember what it was; I have since remembered: Cecilvania, the all-vanilla-masquerading as a power role game that NAF ran on the SDMB. In that one, the player displaying evident PIS was me. I was doing a long, involved discussion of potential lynch numbers, and I was one of the three Scum, and at some point in my enthusiasm, I started just assuming three Scum in the numbers I was running. You know who was the first person to point it out? How's this for kind of funny coincidence: you! (you were Town). Hockey Monkey (Town) and CatinaSuit (Town) were next on. Then Wanderers (Town). My actual confederates (Nanook and Pollux Oil) came late and diffident to the wagon and ignored it altogether, respectively. Interestingly enough, I myself had seized on an apparent PIS from another Town player (Fretful Porpentine) in the posts prior to my own slip. So from that game, anyway, that's one data point opposing your theory and one supporting it. My working hypothesis is that the theory (PIS is more likely noticed by Scum than by Town) applies (in generic games - I don't know about here in Conspiracy) far more to cases of marginal PIS against Town players, rather than to cases of more dramatic PIS against Scum players. Since I don't know your alignment yet, I can't really address nphase's in light of this. I have no problem with the second half of this argument, I guess (after the word "furthermore"). I don't necessarily agree with it in the strictest sense, but it's reasonable. I do have a problem with the early part of the passage, though. I get where you're going with it, but it seems to me that it translates to: "I give pro-Town points to people who make bad arguments and anti-Town points to people who make well-reasoned arguments," and I'm not really sure I think that's a useful approach.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:47:24 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 27, 2010 7:47:24 GMT -5
Sorry to whine, but not having had my coffee yet and all -- what good is this discussion doing?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 7:48:39 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 27, 2010 7:48:39 GMT -5
NETA: Double cross-post; that was aimed at sachertorte/Bill.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 8:13:14 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 27, 2010 8:13:14 GMT -5
Furthermore, if you dug up posts on me and found posts indicating my preference for roles in games then that would be valid evidence. It would be evidence that you had previously expressed a preference. It would be not evidence that - it was currently still your preference - that you had chosen to express a preference for a role - that you had chosen to express a preference for a scum role - that you had actually got the role you asked for BTW, if a coin "flipped heads 49 out of the last 50 times," then you HAVE FUCKING EVIDENCE THAT IT IS NOT A FAIR COIN, which is the entire point. For the given sample size, flipping heads 49 out of 50, would suggest that the coin may not be fair, but is not conclusive evidence of such. Over a larger sample it may be 500 out of 1000. In this case you have a sample size of 1 (the C3 game) and it is not the same set of folk making the same decisions. I think we can agree to disagree on how statistical and probability theories can be applied to mafia, and we're probably boring the hell out of everyone else!
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 8:14:06 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 27, 2010 8:14:06 GMT -5
bufftabby: As I said, you are not really my first choice for a lynch, but I did feel that your responses were evasive and overly defensive, and that your vote on Idle was weak. If I were going to be around today, I would hold off on voting you and see what happened, but my vote right now is more saying I am not really against your lynch and I want to be certain there is a lynch than it is that you are definitely the player I want lynched. The more I read BillMc's replies to Sach, the more I would like to see BillMc lynched, but I can only vote for him once. Fair enough. I'll just point out that what you see as evasiveness is me being annoyed all to hell.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 8:14:46 GMT -5
Post by BillMc on Jul 27, 2010 8:14:46 GMT -5
format fail - doh.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 8:19:03 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Jul 27, 2010 8:19:03 GMT -5
Unvote: Eureka for obvious reasons
Going back to Vote: Kat as the person I feel is most suspicious.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 8:22:52 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 27, 2010 8:22:52 GMT -5
Just to be clear, nphase, redskeezix, septimus, Special Ed, MentalGuy, eureka, nanook, you are all voting for a freemason.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 8:26:35 GMT -5
Post by Duvsie on Jul 27, 2010 8:26:35 GMT -5
Two different expert Mafia players have reacted to two different and unrelated messages by you (#56 and #119), saying they sound scummy enough to get a Lynch vote. As a beginner, I follow their lead to some extent. Meanwhile, my logic tells me that anti-Idle reasoning is scummy. Together, these points made you my best lynch candidate, IMO. Are you suggesting that as a matter of etiquette I should have referenced all the relevant messages, lest my vote be thought "thin"? I don’t think you should be following anybodys lead if you are town, irrespective of whether they are mafia experts or not. The idea that you are willing to follow their lead is disconcerting to say the least and suggests some sort of affiliation with them. Not to mention the persistent ‘I’m not scum’ theme prompts me to Vote: septimus
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 8:40:11 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Jul 27, 2010 8:40:11 GMT -5
Just to be clear, nphase, redskeezix, septimus, Special Ed, MentalGuy, eureka, nanook, you are all voting for a freemason. I am getting confused - have you previously claimed freemason, or is this your claim?
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 8:54:53 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 27, 2010 8:54:53 GMT -5
That's her claim.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 8:54:09 GMT -5
Post by Red Skeezix on Jul 27, 2010 8:54:09 GMT -5
First:
unvote bufftabby
She may be either a freemason OR the omega wolf. IIRC, C3 had no freemasons. No real way to tell at this point, as her actions still seem scummy to me. But since freemason is partially confirmable role, i'll give her the benefit of the doubt, for now.
second: Idle, I'm on your list.
Time to return to reading, seeing if I can draw water from the rock.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 9:07:38 GMT -5
Post by Renata on Jul 27, 2010 9:07:38 GMT -5
First: unvote bufftabbyShe may be either a freemason OR the omega wolf. IIRC, C3 had no freemasons. No real way to tell at this point, as her actions still seem scummy to me. But since freemason is partially confirmable role, i'll give her the benefit of the doubt, for now. second: Idle, I'm on your list. Time to return to reading, seeing if I can draw water from the rock. Or she could be none of the above and just looking for the best possible claim. I'm not inclined to change my vote.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 9:13:15 GMT -5
Post by bufftabby on Jul 27, 2010 9:13:15 GMT -5
Just to be clear, nphase, redskeezix, septimus, Special Ed, MentalGuy, eureka, nanook, you are all voting for a freemason. I am getting confused - have you previously claimed freemason, or is this your claim? I mentioned previously that I could be confirmed at some point. This is my clarification as to how. Granted, it's not a solid confirmation, but in the future, I can be as confirmed as Masons get.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 9:13:25 GMT -5
Post by stanislaus on Jul 27, 2010 9:13:25 GMT -5
Freemason is at least a confirmable claim. Moreover, the number of handshakes Buff receives (if she's telling the truth) will confirm an element of Idle's list, for what that's worth.
But how many more claims do we want toDay? Is there anyway to avoid this cycle of votes-claim-unvotes-claim? The only ways I can see us doing it are a) disbelieving someone's claim or b) running out of time to unvote.
In the interests of firming up what claims are even possible, my role is on Idle's list. But I don't really think that gets us very far.
On another note, I see duvsie has returned with a real vote. It's very me-too-ish but the reasons for my policy vote are now gone so
unvote duvsie
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 9:18:12 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 27, 2010 9:18:12 GMT -5
My eyes! my eyes!
I'll just put BillMc in the 'not rational' pile and move on.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 9:24:57 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 27, 2010 9:24:57 GMT -5
As far as "pointing out PIS" is a scum tell goes, I'm of the opinion that Cecil Pond was the apex of that scum tell. At the very least, whatever happens after this game, I think most will know the scum tell and I expect scum to actively avoid it (while Town will unwittingly continue). Such is the cycle of life. I do have a problem with the early part of the passage, though. I get where you're going with it, but it seems to me that it translates to: "I give pro-Town points to people who make bad arguments and anti-Town points to people who make well-reasoned arguments," and I'm not really sure I think that's a useful approach. Well that's just the problem isn't it? Kind of the whole point of the game. I get what you are saying, but I think you know why I stated what I stated regarding Idle Thoughts. At its essence it is a 'scum motivation' analysis. I wouldn't characterize it in the blanket manner you did. We can't approach the game with established rules and policies on this matter. We have to call each situation as they arise because it is the tone and manner in which people approach things that will reveal the alignment, not the action itself. The phrase "opposing Idle Thoughts" is an overly broad and insufficiently descriptive term that we have to use because we don't have anything else. My feeling is that the situation, how it developed, how people reacted to it, what the implications of Idle Lying are, point to those pushing back on Idle as being Town. There could very well be a similar but situationally different event that might lead to the opposite conclusion based on slight nuance. I know this sounds like a copout, but I believe it to be the truth. Anyway, I think we are, essentially, on the same page for that.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 10:02:14 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 27, 2010 10:02:14 GMT -5
Unvote: Eureka
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 10:02:17 GMT -5
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Jul 27, 2010 10:02:17 GMT -5
Hoopy Frood has become a Zombie First of all I'm going to vote the one person who I know threatens my wincon before coming back with probably more votes and thoughts. Vote: Hoopy Frood [/color][/quote] And so the meme continues.... ;D Oh, and: BRRRAAAAAIIIINNNNNNSSSSS!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 10:06:19 GMT -5
Post by sachertorte on Jul 27, 2010 10:06:19 GMT -5
I know this is boring to some, but I find this type of discussion the most interesting. As I play for entertainment, I'm doing what I find fun. Also, there is a point at the end, I promise.
I very much enjoyed storyteller's views on the latest PIS scandal. For the most part I agree with him, but is relating Cecilvania and adding new data to the mix I think really focused the PIS argument further.
(1) Cecil Pond: Rysto (scum) accuses Special Ed (Town) of PIS (2) Munchkin: Drainbead, hockey monkey and someone else (all scum) accuse sachertorte (Town) of PIS (3) Cecilvania: storyteller (scum) accuses fretful (Town) of PIS (4) Cecilvania: sachertorte et at. (Town) accuse storyteller (scum) of PIS (5) C4: normal phase (unknown) accuses sachertorte (publicly unknown) of PIS.
So this got me thinking about what was similar and what was different about the cases. While I may be overfitting, I don't think I am. storyteller' PIS in Cecilvania was significantly different than the other cases. Storyteller revealed non-public information, a type of information that town could never have or even comment on. In at least cases (1) and (2), the accusation was more subtle. In my case, I had made commentary that implied that storyteller was town, something a townie should not know for sure, but something that a townie might say (and did say) for not being careful. I think this is a significant difference.
What does this mean? There are different shades of PIS that need to be distinguished. Cases (1) and (2) are situations where the accusation is that player X is treating player Y as Town, when they shouldn't know that at all. Case (4) is a blatant statement that reveals facts not in evidence that are unrelated to player alignment. Case (5) is more like Case (4). nphase saw a comment by me that revealed information that nphase did not know about, thus it stood out and she called me on it (erroneously, but you know). Anyway, this is much more analogous to case (4), that is, it wasn't a squishy PIS case, but an (apparent) solid slip. This isn't a case of "how do you know that X is town, you can't know that!"
Upon further reflection on this point, it occurs to me that nphase, if scum, would be insane to call me out on it without checking the rules extremely carefully. Obviously she didn't check, so who is more likely to be lazy about re-reading the rules? Town or scum? I say Town.
Unvote: nphase
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 10:09:01 GMT -5
Post by Sister Coyote on Jul 27, 2010 10:09:01 GMT -5
Is there anyway to avoid this cycle of votes-claim-unvotes-claim? The only ways I can see us doing it are a) disbelieving someone's claim or b) running out of time to unvote. Pretty much no; claims when threatened are part of the game. Although I wasn't aware anyone was near enough to the vote threshold for the claims to start flying. Also, you forgot one other thing that will break the cycle: a counterclaim. Which then puts the rest of us in the position of needing to pick who we figure is lying.
|
|
|
Day One
Jul 27, 2010 10:20:06 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Jul 27, 2010 10:20:06 GMT -5
Helllllo...everyone? Vote for me! I volunteer! Need a lynch toDay, then the best choice is me, that way you can all use the list from here on out after it's shown I'm Town. Seems to me if I don't mind being killed then it works out...because it's late in the day and now everyone's scrambling with votes. Just put it on me. I'll take it for the good of Town, so that the list can be confirmed. Better than having no lynch occur, which is what's going to happen....better information than no information. Course, with seven wolves, they'd love to make it so Town gets no information so I can't really expect them to vote for me. REMEMBER THAT...WOLVES AND OTHER SCUM WILL TRY LIKE HELL TO CAUSE NO LYNCH TO HAPPEN DURING THE DAY. They don't want anyone getting lynched. Better for them.
Lynch me.
|
|