|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 10:44:45 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 24, 2007 10:44:45 GMT -5
*eyes cross and glaze over*
Can the application to Day 1 be in English? Pretty please?
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 10:45:47 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Sept 24, 2007 10:45:47 GMT -5
Blam, can you repost this for an English major?
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 10:48:15 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 24, 2007 10:48:15 GMT -5
[ Cookies has already pointed out she too has a non-ThemeNameGame or something similar, so that's already 2 out of 28 people. I'm still reading this post, but need to chime in here (without confirming or denying the "themeness" of my name) that you have me confused with someone else.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 10:59:29 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 24, 2007 10:59:29 GMT -5
BlaM, would you mind doing your follow up post in English, please?
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 11:00:04 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 24, 2007 11:00:04 GMT -5
Ha! Maybe I should check to see if there's another page before I post?
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 11:17:41 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Sept 24, 2007 11:17:41 GMT -5
4. atarus:"I'd prefer a Cat lynch to a dotchan lynch. But I prefer a dotchan lynch to a no-lynch, because with a no-lynch we solve no debates, and the distractions and clusterfucking continues into toMorrow. " And yet, you unvoted me and did not vote again. Any reason for not following through on your original preference. Well, mostly I was caught up in the WIFOM Home Game (tm). This is what I said in the same post that I unvoted you: Basically, I didn't think dotchan was scummy, as I outlined in my original "any lynch is better than no lynch" post. I was rethinking my original idea of "dotchan lynch is better than no-chan lynch" and weighing the pros (end Ramiro debate, get information) and cons (give scum an easy out for claiming if in trouble, lose a possible townie) against each other. In the end I just wasn't comfortable voting for Ramirochan because I kept feeling perpetually uneasy about my vote. I was online for a good hour before the votes were due just rereading information and internally debating what I wanted to do. I didn't post anything 'cause I felt like all the information I needed to make my decision was already there. When I voted for Mad and Cat, I was confident (at the time, before Cat and Mad role-claimed) that I had a bead on scum and I had enough information to back up my vote. With Ramirochan, I didn't feel that confidence if I were to put my vote on her to be lynched. And that's why I didn't put my vote up. And.... Cookies has already pointed out she too has a non-ThemeNameGame or something similar, so that's already 2 out of 28 people. I'm still reading this post, but need to chime in here (without confirming or denying the "themeness" of my name) that you have me confused with someone else. Roosh, I believe you are confusing Cookies with our Flying Cowboy of Doom. He's the one who's said he can't find his name anywhere on the lists, I believe.
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 11:23:18 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Sept 24, 2007 11:23:18 GMT -5
Okay, before this Day gets too far into it, I have something important to mention:
Someone tried to kill me last Night.
They — obviously and thankfully — did not succeed. The indications were that I fought them off (I presume my attacker is aware that I know this.)
There is nothing to indicate that I was under special protection, but that doesn't mean I wasn't. There could be a role that protects without the target being aware of it. (If so, thank you.)
I don't have any sort of power (like Roosh) that would make me harder to kill. (I respectfully ask that whoever did it not try again, please.)
It's entirely possible the attacker has only a certain chance of success (but intriguingly the intended victim is aware).
I'm not sure what this portends, aside from the obvious - there is another killing role in the game.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 11:32:14 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 24, 2007 11:32:14 GMT -5
Iiiinteresting. So was it Greedy, the scum, or someone else? As I've already used up the Easter Bunny, we could call him/her the Santa Slasher. I know, I'm odd. But this keeps me from making too many assumptions as to these roles that seem to be revealed with small crumbs of information. I don't want to assume too much about them (i.e. Hal's mystery investigator from Night 1 is a "cop" or that one of last night's kills was from a "vig"), and the fake labels help.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 11:37:09 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 24, 2007 11:37:09 GMT -5
So was it Greedy, the scum, or someone else? Just to be clear, this is a rhetorical question used to remind myself to keep all possibilities open until given a reason not to.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:08:18 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Sept 24, 2007 12:08:18 GMT -5
Re: sinjin v. DiomedesOk, a lot of the back-and-forth between these two has been covered, but one exchange seems to have slipped by: And Roosh is absolutely right, I'm not going to let the town have any say in what I do. Aren't you two part of the town (crew)? Are you kidding me? Really? Translating that into what's between the lines, I read it as: "I'm not going to let the town have any say in what I do." "Ah-hah! Why would you say 'town' if you're town? You should've said..." ...and that's where my brain fails. I don't know if sinjin was looking for "us", or "players", or what, but "town" is obviously the most apt word for that spot. Calling him out on it, like it's some sort of scum tell, is so ridiculous to me that I'm reading it like a big 'ol scum tell in itself. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: someone taking a shot at Roosh -- On a (in-game) personal level: Damn, sorry someone tried to take you out like that. Glad the attempt failed. On a gaming level: Damn, another killing role out there?? Sheesh... On a whole different level: This... I don't have any sort of power (like Roosh) that would make me harder to kill. (I respectfully ask that whoever did it not try again, please.) ...is making me laugh a lot harder than it probably should.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:12:19 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 24, 2007 12:12:19 GMT -5
[ Cookies has already pointed out she too has a non-ThemeNameGame or something similar, so that's already 2 out of 28 people. I'm still reading this post, but need to chime in here (without confirming or denying the "themeness" of my name) that you have me confused with someone else. It was me. I can't find my name anywhere on the intarwebs. Okay, let's begin by defining certain variables:
Let n,m, and s be the number of total players, masons, and scum reflectively. Obviously, n > m + s otherwise the game is completely broken.
[here is where I cut out the parts I don't get -- FCOD]
I have to go to lunch though, so I'll follow up with how I think this applies to late Day 1. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:12:57 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 24, 2007 12:12:57 GMT -5
You mean taking a shot at panama right?
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:15:27 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Sept 24, 2007 12:15:27 GMT -5
1) Your fishing expedition yesterday = doubting any and all un-counterclaimed power roles, solely because "but what if they're lying, seriously?" That's a waste of time--they're both big names, unlikely to not be in a Firefly-themed game, and we have plenty of more fertile waters to explore. doubting = fishing??? And the only one I doubted yesterday was Roosh. And I removed my vote on him when Cookies pointed out the uwritten rule that 'major characters with minor powers' should not be voted out the airlock early in the game. Which given her explanation made sense. zeriel: That was not my intent. And Roosh please look here #66 for the answer to your question. And finally story, when I wrote that I didn't know what "hammer" meant. It just seemed to me that getting 15 votes on one person would be difficult enough without the 14th and 15th voters being labeled as scummy if they voted without the town's consensus (which was never defined btw). I was afraid that scum would prevent a consensus from occurring.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:22:30 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 24, 2007 12:22:30 GMT -5
<snip> Re: someone taking a shot at Roosh -- On a (in-game) personal level: Damn, sorry someone tried to take you out like that. Glad the attempt failed. <snip> Somebody tried to take out Roosh?
|
|
Merestil Haye
FGM
Grudge Keeper
[on:Slumming it in the Middle-Earth][of:In the halls of Manw
Posts: 1,077
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:28:31 GMT -5
Post by Merestil Haye on Sept 24, 2007 12:28:31 GMT -5
Like DarkCookies, I think Hal is confusing Roosh with PanamaJack.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:30:42 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 24, 2007 12:30:42 GMT -5
Before we continue down the road where I'm attributed with things that I didn't say or intend, I’d like to take a little walk down memory lane as to what exactly I said to sinjin. But when searching for my own posts, I’m not finding the ones I want. What is the best technique for pulling up everything from Day 1?
I think she is still misunderstanding (in a "newbie" as opposed to "scummy" way) what I was saying and why. I noticed one other comment during Day 1 that struck me similarly, but I opted out of clarification at that time because it didn't seem like a big enough deal and Day one was big enough already.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:35:19 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 24, 2007 12:35:19 GMT -5
Apparently, all a person's posts show up when you do a search for all posts by that person.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:42:50 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 24, 2007 12:42:50 GMT -5
Now, that I realize such is the case, I'll be a bit more forgiving in the future of such names. Snipped. Thing is...the door is now open to scum just making up a name and being able to say "But dotchan's wasn't on the list either." Seriously, I still think anyone who doesn't have a specific name from the show (or at least one that can be found SOMEWHERE) should still be regarded with a higher level of suspicion. So yeah, I think this is a pre suspicion starting against FCoD (again, since very early in the game I was also more suspicious of him than others at the time). That was FCoD, actually. <Welllllllllllllllll, nevermind. Already been cleared up.> I like your case against Tragic. Maybe it's because it's been niggling at me too for a bit. I disagree with all of the people piling on sinjin though. I'm in the same boat as wtf on this. While I wouldn't point it out myself, I don't see how sinjin was fishing or how she's trying to control roles at all and I can't see how anyone else would see that. If I had to make a suspicion list right now, it'd look like this, from most suspected, to least. Drain Bead Hockey Monkey tragic FCoDThere are others. That I'm more suspicious of than typical. But not enough to go on this list yet. There are also others that I feel probable are pro-good side. I've said these before. I shall not say them again for a few reason: 1. Apparently "name dropping/associatation for the good" makes people suspicious too, which is understandable since scum tend to like to buddy buddy up to town. 2. I don't want to leave myself open to the possibility of being misled or fooled by someone I'm mistaking putting trust in. My feelings are apt to change in a posts notice anyway.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:43:04 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 24, 2007 12:43:04 GMT -5
Okay, before this Day gets too far into it, I have something important to mention: Someone tried to kill me last Night. They — obviously and thankfully — did not succeed. The indications were that I fought them off (I presume my attacker is aware that I know this.) There is nothing to indicate that I was under special protection, but that doesn't mean I wasn't. There could be a role that protects without the target being aware of it. (If so, thank you.) I don't have any sort of power (like Roosh) that would make me harder to kill. (I respectfully ask that whoever did it not try again, please.) It's entirely possible the attacker has only a certain chance of success (but intriguingly the intended victim is aware). I'm not sure what this portends, aside from the obvious - there is another killing role in the game. Before I return to my manifesto, I want to address this. If we assume this is true, I think this actually makes more sense. The targetting of Greedy Smurf makes NO sense from a scum perspective. Why? Because he did some VERY suspicious things yesterday (which led to my suspicion) and his actions at the end of the day were SUPER suspicious. Namely, he specifically said earlier in the Day that he would change his vote to ensure a lynch, but when we needed the hammer, he was online and was hesitant. That was what was going to be the crux of my argument against him Today. Now, I will hope that there is a Vigilante out there and he picked up on the same sorts of tells that I did and he took him out. Thus, IF this is true, my suspicion would be that it was the Vig who took out Smurf, the scum who took out Dig, and the SK (Smurf) missed. OTOH, in the openning color (yes, this is a bit of meta-gaming) it specifically said "Greedy Smurf aka The Operative, a Serial Killer, has been killed". That is, it is entirely possible, based on the color (which NAF, I believer confirmed there would be "some" clues in) that there is more than one Serial Killer. Going on this logic, it wouldn't be reasonable to think the scum would target panamajack, because I, at least, didn't get any power role reads from him. Thus, it WOULD make him a safe target for an SK player, or a reasonable target for a Vig (if he was suspicious of him. Either way, I see this as a not unlikely scenario.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:49:00 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 24, 2007 12:49:00 GMT -5
Thing is...the door is now open to scum just making up a name and being able to say "But dotchan's wasn't on the list either." Seriously, I still think anyone who doesn't have a specific name from the show (or at least one that can be found SOMEWHERE) should still be regarded with a higher level of suspicion. So yeah, I think this is a pre suspicion starting against FCoD (again, since very early in the game I was also more suspicious of him than others at the time). This is PRECISELY why I think giving ANY leeway to a name claim (with a few possible exceptions) is poor judgment. For instance, we now know that unverifiable names could be legitimate players, and thus knowing that, a fake name could be a vanilla player OR scum covering up a "bad guy" name. Further, we are completely unable to make any judgment either way about a potential recruitment following during/after the start of the game or potentially before (to allow for certain obviously pro-crew names to be bad-guys). IOW, I think the information gain from a name-claim is pretty darn close to zero.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 12:51:17 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Sept 24, 2007 12:51:17 GMT -5
Oops in post 102 above the last paragraph was for CatInaSuit not story.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 13:00:06 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Sept 24, 2007 13:00:06 GMT -5
[ based on the color (which NAF, I believer confirmed there would be "some" clues in) No clues in anything other then the color at the top of the game. We will at all times try to leave open the possibility that there are multiples of all factions. So you will never see us refer to anyone as "the power role" always "a power role", or more likly in my case simply "-power role"
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 13:04:17 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 24, 2007 13:04:17 GMT -5
My search foo is seriously hosed. If I use the "search" link at the very top of the page (above the ads) I can see no option for searching for posts made by a particular user. When I try and search for my name, I get all sorts of posts that a) weren't posted by me and b) don't include my name either. What I have been doing since we lost everything, is pull up the poster's profile, and adjust the settings for the "most recent posts" so that the parameters of the search should pull up everything they've posted since the game starts. I haven't noticed this leading to holes in other players, but being more intimately familiar with what I've written myself, I am seeing holes in what shows up when I search for posts that I've made in this fashion. Case in point, I know that I cracked a joke about Roosh and the fake magician around the same time as I was trying to explain some "unwritten rules" to sinjin, and I know that post contained the word "telekinetic". But when I search for "telekinetic" in the long page of search results that is supposed to comprise everything I've posted so far in this game, I do not find it. Can anyone else find that post???
|
|
Parzival
Mome Rath
Let's all strive to do our best today![on:forgot to log out][of:forgot to log in]
Posts: 201
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 13:09:02 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Sept 24, 2007 13:09:02 GMT -5
I have some more thoughts on the attack on me in a little while. I just wanted to point out that if anyone didn't finish Blaster Master's earlier post, the crucial point is at the end: However, unlike the town, scum certainty is NOT based only on judgment of evidence, but knowledge of that individual's role. For instance, prior to a claim, scum based their certainty on the available evidence. However, after a claim, distinct knowledge of that player's alignment gives them a huge advantage in certainty. And, thus, this is precisely why the certainty factor is a huge advantage for scum, and why a closed setup is an advantage for scum, because they will always have a larger degree of certain about a players alignment relative to their own than non-scum. Further, the scum will have distinct information prior to when the town is able to obtain it. For instance, when Dotchan [Ver. 1] made her claim of being Ramiro, the scum knew several things the rest of us did NOT know, including that her claim was highly certain to be true (because she wasn't scum) AND that there were definitely made up names in the 'verse. You can ignore the rest of this post as well if you want , but an attempt to explain it graphically ... Imagine in an open game, you drew up a chart with the roles down the side and the player names across. At each point you put in the chance that player is that role (as a fraction). If you were D: Role | Player-> | A | B | C | D | E | etc. | Top Cat | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Fat Cat | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Hep Cat | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Hep Cat | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Tabby | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | etc. | Tabby | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Tabby | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Tabby | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Tabby | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Chia Badger | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Top Dog | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Big Dog | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Hot Dog | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Running Dog | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Running Dog | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. |
A scum player would have it better filled, but everyone would be able to at least get some numbers there, which helps. In a closed game, it's more like this: Role | Player-> | A | B | C | D | E | etc. | Cat | ? | ? | ? | 0 | ? | etc. | Tabby | ? | ? | ? | 1 | ? | etc. | Dog | ? | ? | ? | 0 | ? | etc. | Chia? | ? | ? | ? | 0 | ? | etc. |
In this case, you could put in numbers, but they'd be guesses in two ways (as to what roles are all in, and how likely the person is that role). But scum would be able to divide up the alignments (at least from Dog to Cat). So they have a much better handle on those numbers. Even though few would actually undertake this chartmaking, what's been shown is that the possibility the scum could do this, and Player D could not, means they have a bigger advantage in information. Edit note: Fixed a data point in panamajack's first table, per his request. Love, Kat
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 13:11:17 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 24, 2007 13:11:17 GMT -5
Since I know I lost a few people, I'm going to try to summarize the major points I'm trying to make. FTR, this is how I actually think, so this is the easiest way for me to discuss this sort of idea. Okay, let's begin by defining certain variables: Let n, m, and s be the number of total players, masons, and scum reflectively. Obviously, n > m + s otherwise the game is completely broken. Obviously, the number of masons and the number of scum must sum to be less than the total number of players; otherwise, you either have players who have BOTH roles, or a town completely made up of masons. Either of those would make the game... silly. Essentially, you have some kind of knowledge about every player's role, and at the beginning, you only know your own unless you're a role that has extra information like masons or scum. Thus, if perfect information is 1, then if you're a vanilla player you start with only information about yourself (1/n), and if you're one of the other groups, you start with a larger fraction. The formula I gave is a more generic case for later in the game when you DO have information about other players. I'm going to expand on that in a bit. The information you have about an individual cannot be summed up in a single value. It is, instead, it is a function of how likely you think that person is to have any of the specific roles. That is, you have reads to place particular individuals as certain roles. If you think someone is likely scum, then you'll have smaller values for the pro-crew roles and larger ones for the pro-scum roles, etc. This is a weighting factor. Basically, information amount certain roles is simply more valuable than certain other roles. For instance, if scum thinks they have a good bead on the doctor, that's important information. The information function should appropriately handle that sort of situation by weighting for valuable information. This is a function for determining the values that get plugged into the original function. The important thing is that there is the introduction of a certainty factor. Basically, this is a measure of how strongly you believe in the likelihood of the potential role distributions as you've laid them out. IOW, if it's based mostly on suspicion, your certainty factor will be low; if it's based on strong evidence (eg, a claim is backed up by an investigation or a fellow mason, etc.) then the certainty factor will be high. Obviously, the higher the certainty factor, the more information you have about that player. This leads back to how chaos and disinformation assists the scum. If a given player makes an unverfiable role-claim (a la, doctor, detective, etc.), the scum have pretty darn close to 100% certainty in that player's role, while everyone else will only be able to say (with less certainty) that he's either telling the truth or lying scum. IOW, this is the factor that successful scum have been able to manipulate effectively. For instance, if someone has a fellow scum pegged, you can't change the evidence, but you CAN affect the certainty of that evidence. Similarly, if someone has a fellow scum pegged as town, you want to make them MORE certain that that person is town This is me leading up to how I think it applies to some of went on on Day 1. I'll follow up on that in a bit.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 13:19:36 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Sept 24, 2007 13:19:36 GMT -5
<snip> Re: someone taking a shot at Roosh -- On a (in-game) personal level: Damn, sorry someone tried to take you out like that. Glad the attempt failed. <snip> Somebody tried to take out Roosh? <donk in da head for me> PanamaJack, of course. I think I was tripped up by Roosh's name being in the line I was quoting. Or maybe it has to do with his name being everyfrickingwhere in this game.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 13:24:43 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 24, 2007 13:24:43 GMT -5
I have some more thoughts on the attack on me in a little while. I just wanted to point out that if anyone didn't finish Blaster Master's earlier post, the crucial point is at the end: However, unlike the town, scum certainty is NOT based only on judgment of evidence, but knowledge of that individual's role. For instance, prior to a claim, scum based their certainty on the available evidence. However, after a claim, distinct knowledge of that player's alignment gives them a huge advantage in certainty. And, thus, this is precisely why the certainty factor is a huge advantage for scum, and why a closed setup is an advantage for scum, because they will always have a larger degree of certain about a players alignment relative to their own than non-scum. Further, the scum will have distinct information prior to when the town is able to obtain it. For instance, when Dotchan [Ver. 1] made her claim of being Ramiro, the scum knew several things the rest of us did NOT know, including that her claim was highly certain to be true (because she wasn't scum) AND that there were definitely made up names in the 'verse. You can ignore the rest of this post as well if you want , but an attempt to explain it graphically ... Imagine in an open game, you drew up a chart with the roles down the side and the player names across. At each point you put in the chance that player is that role (as a fraction). If you were D: Role | Player-> | A | B | C | D | E | etc. | Top Cat | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Fat Cat | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Hep Cat | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Hep Cat | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Tabby | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1/14 | 0 | etc. | Tabby | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Tabby | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Tabby | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Tabby | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Chia Badger | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Top Dog | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Big Dog | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Hot Dog | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Running Dog | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. | Running Dog | 1/14 | 1/14 | 1/14 | 0 | 1/14 | etc. |
A scum player would have it better filled, but everyone would be able to at least get some numbers there, which helps. In a closed game, it's more like this: Role | Player-> | A | B | C | D | E | etc. | Cat | ? | ? | ? | 0 | ? | etc. | Tabby | ? | ? | ? | 1 | ? | etc. | Dog | ? | ? | ? | 0 | ? | etc. | Chia? | ? | ? | ? | 0 | ? | etc. |
In this case, you could put in numbers, but they'd be guesses in two ways (as to what roles are all in, and how likely the person is that role). But scum would be able to divide up the alignments (at least from Dog to Cat). So they have a much better handle on those numbers. Even though few would actually undertake this chartmaking, what's been shown is that the possibility the scum could do this, and Player D could not, means they have a bigger advantage in information. Thank you for the chart, I think it might help demonstrate what I'm talking about. Of course, the key point is I'm not suggesting that anyone does or even should create these sorts of charts (I actually tried something similar in M2, but it quickly became unbearable). What I AM trying to do is create a model to quantify the amount of information available. For instance, Player 1 says he has a read on Player 2. What does that mean? That means he thinks he has a bead on what roles Player 2 might have and might not have. Along with that bead comes how certain he is or is not that those beads are correct. Now, chances are he can't objectively quantify any of these values (which is why its a fruitless endeavor to actually try to create one of these charts); however, we can theorize that they exist on some level because they allow for a way to quantify information on a theoretical level which allows me to state substantiate my claim that a closed game is advantageous to scum. Further, based on how specific actions (like role claims) affect the available information, we can determine how that helps or hurts a particular side. [Jack Nicholson]This is also why the loss of dotchan [Ver. 1], while tragic, probably saved lives.[/Jack Nicholson] That is, all of the information associate with her role was 100% certain to the scum, but the crew's certainty was definitively much less than 100%. This provided a simple to manipulate certainty factor which, as I tried to point out, strongly favored scum. ...I'll try to better substantiate that in my next post (lest there's more to which I need to respond.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 13:30:17 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 24, 2007 13:30:17 GMT -5
Yo, No one tried to take me out that i know of last night. I have passed out in real life due to Panama Jack Rum, but that's the only association i have with that name.
So yeah, Just confusion on that part that i'd like to clear up.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 13:30:42 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 24, 2007 13:30:42 GMT -5
I've taken my search difficulties over to the "Board observations..." thread in meta-gaming.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 13:51:21 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 24, 2007 13:51:21 GMT -5
Now, here's the key point behind all of this math. Namely, the crew starts out with a numerical advantage and scum start out with an informational advantage. The game pits each sides advantage against the other, and either side must manipulate it's advantage to chip into the other's initial advantage. That is, the crew will lose some of it's numerical advantage, but as long as we're gaining at least a comparable amount of information, we're fine. Similarly, the scum will lose some of its information advantage, but as long as they gain a comparable amount in numbers, they're fine.
Of course, the difference is, if the crew does not actively attempt to gain information, the process will naturally favor the scum because they WILL necessarily attempt to improve their numerical ratio every Night AND chances are, they'll be picking kills to at least minimize if not actualy distort the information the crew gains as a result. Thus, we CANNOT afford to forego a chance to improve our the amount of information we gain.
Further, we can analyze what we learned as a result of Dotchan's death. We know of at least one case of a non-FF name in the game. We also know with certainty what her role was, and thus, can retrospectively analyze how that may have affected the play of certain individuals. This is information that we only gained through her lynch, BUT the scum definitively had with or without her lynch. Thus, it would have been a huge informational advantage for the scum.
Thus, this is why I'm highly suspicious of any individual who either actively argued for a no-lynch (here's looking at StoryTeller) or those who appeared to be against a no-lynch but, when push came to shove, didn't come through (like Greedy Smurf, but I know there was at least one more).
Further, knowing that she was definitively pro-crew AND had a made up name, this would provide a simple out for a player (like Greedy Smurf) who have pretty strong bad guy names to simply make up a fake name and hope that it's taken like Dotchan's was.
More over, we have no evidence to either support or deny the existence of a recruitment either during or prior to the start of the game.
Hence, I propose that all name claims (even one's of obviously pro-crew characters) are summarily dismissed as reasons to trust or suspect anyone. Names, at best, provide a low amount of information compared to high amount of manipulatable uncertainty.
Now, to bring it back to my suspects, because of this, the person I'm most suspicious of is Storyteller. There ARE others that did similar things (including Tragic, IIRC). I will have to look back through the last few pages of Day 1 to be able to substantiate any more than my suspicion of either of those (other than, of course, my tone based suspicions I listed earlier).
So, I'll begin with a Vote for Storyteller. Because I found his case for a no-lynch to be full of poor logic, especially in the face of his experience and that this is a game of information.
|
|