|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 14:16:10 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Sept 24, 2007 14:16:10 GMT -5
This game is making my head hurt, and reading through Blam's missive didn't help--to me, all but the last post might as well have been written in Sanskrit. I almost want to FOS him for writing a huge long post that maybe two people in this game would understand, and then using it to form the basis of a vote. The only reason I'm not is that the last post made perfect sense to me. I think we learned a lot from the events of yesterDay and last Night, and I'm pretty sure we'd be in a worse place if there had been a no-lynch yesterDay. One thing I've resolved to do is not be so easily led, so I will probably wait a while before making any vote. I will be out of town from Saturday to Tuesday, but I plan on keeping up with the end of the Day from Vegas. If I make a vote and then stick with it, it's because I'm out living it up.
|
|
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 14:31:58 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 24, 2007 14:31:58 GMT -5
This game is making my head hurt, and reading through Blam's missive didn't help--to me, all but the last post might as well have been written in Sanskrit. I almost want to FOS him for writing a huge long post that maybe two people in this game would understand, and then using it to form the basis of a vote. The only reason I'm not is that the last post made perfect sense to me. I think we learned a lot from the events of yesterDay and last Night, and I'm pretty sure we'd be in a worse place if there had been a no-lynch yesterDay. One thing I've resolved to do is not be so easily led, so I will probably wait a while before making any vote. I will be out of town from Saturday to Tuesday, but I plan on keeping up with the end of the Day from Vegas. If I make a vote and then stick with it, it's because I'm out living it up. FTR, you'll find I like to post long diatribes and, in fact, I was tempted to put a bunch of math in the last post in which I voted for Storyteller. I simply find the theoretical side of this game fascinating. Of course, if there's any points that I failed to explain well, I'd be happy to take another crack at them involving less formulation.
|
|
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 15:37:08 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 24, 2007 15:37:08 GMT -5
...Did I kill the game?
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 15:48:12 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 24, 2007 15:48:12 GMT -5
OK, let's just start with this: Spaceman Blaster, there is no way I can respond to your argument on the same level at which it was made, because I just plumb don't follow some of it and am unlikely ever to do so (I'm an English major, for heaven't sake). But I think I understand the gestalt of your argument, so I'm going to respond to that. If I'm getting even that wrong, though, feel free to correct me. Here's the thing: I'm pretty sure I disagree with you on this subject. There are two elements to this - the fact of my disagreement, and the question of whether or not my disagreement is scummy. I actually think it is the former point that's more important here, and the one I'm going to focus on. As for the latter - well, two things: (1) Disagreement regarding strategy does not equal scum tell. You know that by now. (2) If I were scum, the absolute last way I'd broadcast it would be to emphatically support what until this game has been a universally unpopular opinion. Every time someone has suggested a no-lynch in previous games, they have been blasted as potential scum. I'd have to be singularly blundering, careless, tone-deaf scum to have made that argument, because I knew it would put me under the microscope. 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. I'm with you up until the last sentence. However, the thing that you're leaving out of your analysis seems to be that the numerical advantage that we possess does possess a nonzero value. Specifically, yesterDay, dotchan's life possessed a nonzero value (let's call it A) to the Crew as a whole. Her death provided a nonzero amount of information, agreeed, with a nonzero value (let's call it B). Your argument is assuming that B > A - but you've offered no real reason why this is the case. I'm going to argue that it's not - that in this particular case, B < A, which is why lynching dot was a mistake. I'm further going to argue that making the assumption that B > A in every case leads to a way of approaching the game that isn't good for the Crew. I'm also going to address the rest of your voting post. But I'm going to have to do all those things when I get home from work - sorry - I've been writing this post in phases and it's suddenly quitting time. More from me in about two hours, when I get home.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 16:16:31 GMT -5
Post by dnooman on Sept 24, 2007 16:16:31 GMT -5
I voted no lynch via removing my last vote. I did this because I was sure that I had identified a fellow crewperson based on the wording of Dot's posts. Looks like I was right, we were headed to lynch a townie, and we did. I could not get behind the "no-lynches are always bad" theory when I was so sure of Dot's towniness. Me being so sure could be considered a scum tell to some, but I claimed first and demonstrated knowledge that was backed up by a confirmed townie.
The feeling I was getting from some of the more ardent "no-lynchers" was almost to the point that I thought they might want her dead even if they knew she was town, just to confirm her role and name. I can't go for that, noooo, no can do.
I'm somewhat surprised that there has been no talk at all about the rollercoaster bandwagon that eventually killed Dot. She had a good amount of votes, I posted my finding that I thought exonerated her, several people unvoted giving her only a few votes, and eventually there was enough blood lust to kill her ass.
FOS everyone that re-voted Dotchan
EDIT NOTE: Edited by NAF because the yellow hurt his eyes.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 17:22:15 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 24, 2007 17:22:15 GMT -5
FOS everyone that re-voted Dotchan And I mean that in a light-hearted fashion but rolleyes nevertheless. Me, I held three or four in high suspicion all Day yesterDay. dotchan (in her first version) was one of them. CIAS was the other and who I put in a vote for near the end. After his roleclaim, the only other whom I still had suspicion over who just so happened to have a lot of votes against her was dot. WELL HOW great is that! Not only am I one who thinks that a no-lynch is bad, but she JUST happened to have a lot of votes against her/be the closest one to a lynch AND someone I just happened to be suspicious of anyway (as most of my Day One shows). Going off half-cocked and just "FOS"ing everyone for revoting I think is just silly. Why not "FOS" EVERYONE who voted for her in that case? What difference does it make? You made your case, I unvoted, I still had some reserves. Sorry but CIAS's claim held just a bit more weight, for one, and for two, it was obvious it came down to him or dot. Seeming that most voted for dot again, so did I. You may think it's all great to vote "no-lynch" but I, personally, don't (if it can be helped). I'm sure great stances could be typed out in many paragraphs for both sides, and great points on each too, but with THIS certain case, there was still enough reasonable doubt, I feel, to vote for her. Will I always vote for someone if I'm convinced they're Town (even though I don't think having a no-lynch is good)? Probably not. I'll take it, myself, on a case by case basis. But it doesn't change the fact that IN THIS CASE, I was still suspicious of dotchan. Can't speak for anyone else, but since your "FOS" included me, there ya go.
|
|
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 17:23:42 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Sept 24, 2007 17:23:42 GMT -5
dnooman - I'm in harmony with your position on not killing someone you think is crew, but I can conceivably see how it's not necessarily scummy to advocate against no-lynches. I do think they're bad for the town, but it's definitely a judgment call on whether you lynch for information or show mercy.
I'm iffy on storyteller's no-lynch call. I'm pretty sure no-lynches are always bad, while he seems to be arguing that it might not be the case. He also didn't seem to be arguing on the particular merits of dotchan's potential innocence, which may be what was bothering me. A general argument against lynches is one I can't buy.
Also, was your post in reference to the 'vanilla crewperson' point? It may be useful to track the end of day voting from yesterday (I think zuma did this at least partly.)
( dotchan1? zumachan?)
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 17:31:47 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Sept 24, 2007 17:31:47 GMT -5
For the sake of clarity can we refer to the character dotchan played previously as either zuma or zuma/dotchan (or some other variation that makes it clear you are referencing the character originated by zuma).
It will make things a touch simpler for all involved.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 17:37:09 GMT -5
Post by Death By Irony on Sept 24, 2007 17:37:09 GMT -5
Sorry, I was in class and I helped my new roomate shop for stuff.
I kind of glossed over Spaceman Spiff's math (and it does make me suspicious because he was also a theorizing, helpful sounding guy when he was a scummy Psychopath in Asylumn Lane), but it goes without saying that I disagree with my lynch in my previous incarnation.
As I said before, I thought I would be more valuable to the town alive - because as a live player, I can still post my opinions and play off of other people.
Voting to lynch Ramiro-me was, IMHO, a cheap way to look townie because I was such an easy target and I had a difficult rolename. So everybody, if pressed for information, can say: "But she looked scummy and we needed the data!" and the people not on the bandwagon can also say: "This is just dotchan being her usual distractingly shiny self. Told you she was town!"
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 17:49:16 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 24, 2007 17:49:16 GMT -5
This attempted paraphrase is brought to you by Cookies Really Crappy Memory (tm): 1) Roosh posted a manifesto or three. In one of those manifestos he suggested as a strategy that if lynch pressure resulted in a power role-claim, that people who had voted for that individual should unvote them in absence of a counter-claim. 2) Some 1000 pages later, Roosh had quite a few votes against him and role-claimed with a name and the ability to possibly kill his attacker if he was killed at night. 3) Many people unvoted Mad. 4) Sinjin was perplexed as to why people were "buying into" Roosh's manifesto and behaving as he had outlined in said manifesto. 5) I attempt to point out to Sinjin that people are probably unvoting him because he is an uncontested power role-claim, not because they are "buying into" his manifesto. I explain that such claims are often give room to age, and people take some time to mull them over. Sometimes that mulling over lasts a Day or longer, depending on the individual players' comfort level with the definition of "uncontested". 6) I elaborate that Roosh's proposal of unvoting an uncontested power role-claim is not an original idea of his, that it is an established method of dealing with such things based on the games I've played previously and my understanding of general Mafia dogma. I joke that believing that people were unvoting Roosh because they believed in his manifesto would be akin to believing that the fake magician who pretends to levitate himself up the escalator is actually telekinetic. So there you have it, now that the issue is probably moot.
|
|
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 18:01:10 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Sept 24, 2007 18:01:10 GMT -5
Back to the subject of why someone tried to kill me. I'm working on the simplest assumption - that there are three killing roles, one of which is now dead. I was thinking it might have been Pedantic Jerkwad Baby, but instead I've just called them K3, Killer #3. Here's a results table with the attacks last night, and who might have done them. Note that since Greedy was the SK, he could not have killed himself. Who did it? Diggit | Greedy(SK) | Panama | Alliance | K3 | SK | -plausible | SK | Alliance | K3 | -plausible | K3 | Alliance | SK | -plausible | SK | K3 | Alliance | -less likely | | | | | K3 | SK | Alliance | -impossible | Alliance | SK | K3 | -impossible |
(Even 'plausible' outcomes are not equally likely, so this doesn't mean it's more likely the Alliance killed Greedy since they're listed twice.) I have a pretty good feeling that it was not the Alliance who targeted me. The main reason is the nature of the attack. It would be really surprising if they only succeed part of the time. The easiest explanation is that whoever did it has a conditional chance of a kill, and thus it was either Greedy or K3. I also don't know why they would target me ( my biggest push was on Dio=scum, and if he is it makes no sense for the Alliance to bump me off and draw attention to it.) So my assumption is that I was targeted by someone who had no information about me, and it was more or less random. Maybe. It is speculation, but it's not a stretch to think K3 is a Vig. I might have done something to make them think I'm scummy, and I hope I'm not still doing that. Alternatively, Greedy or Diggit tipped them off, so it's sort of hard to conclude anything. Blaster Master has stated a good case could have been made against Greedy; Diggit was a Mason and might have seemed to know something special. As for who the scum went after, it's still between the two that are dead. If the scum could have figured out that Diggit was a mason, they wouldn't have gone after him since it confirms Mad. They might just as easily picked him as a power role, though, if he seemed to be hiding something. Greedy could have been a target, but if his actions were as strange as they seem, it'd have been odd for them to target him since he could have been on the block today (and for all they knew he was crew).
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 18:40:26 GMT -5
Post by sinjin on Sept 24, 2007 18:40:26 GMT -5
Thank you Cookies. Even though I probably didn't say it right, you did make me understand what was going on. Arggh, I sometimes feel like english is my second language. I understand shiny's(spaceman spiff(Blam's)) posts. <D & R> It's difs like town = scum and crew, and town = crew, and alliance town = crew and scum = bad guys, or alliance (but not alliance town) or reavers or cults or psychopaths and all the various permutations that are driving me crazy. To me it's as simple as crew = good guys and every body else = bad guys. But then again I like the zeroth law of thermodynamics too.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 18:49:19 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 24, 2007 18:49:19 GMT -5
OK, I'm back. Sorry for the delay.
Picking up where I left off...
So we have agreed that there is some nonzero benefit, A, that dotchan's life provided the town by virtue of contributing to our numerical advantage. We have further agreed that there is some nonzero benefit, B, that dotchan's death provided to the town by virtue of added information. Blaster Master/Spaceman Spiff has posited that B > A. I disagree. Here's why:
Strictly speaking, if I may co-opt BM's terminology (albeit clumsily), what we got from dotchan's death was not information, it was an increase in certainty. We had information; what we got from this lynch was 100% certainty that the information we had was correct information. Is this an accurate characterization? Assuming it is, how to go about quantifying the value of that increase in certainty?
By the time dotchan was lynched, I was fairly confident that she was Crew. I had three reasons for feeling this way; I articulated two of them, but very briefly - until the pendulum swung back her way at the end, I thought discussing dot was pointless, as the danger to her had abated. My reasons were as follows:
1. The fact that her role claim matched in the terminology used by dnooman. I consider the fact that she chose the specific terms contained in the role PM to be telling. Sure, she could have been scum aping the text of dnooman's claim, but to do so would have been a considerable risk - if dnooman had been paraphrasing and she deliberately aped his post, it would have backfired.
2. My subjective impression of her actions, tone, language choice, and general behavior was that she was not scum. I realize this is vague, but however hard one tries to make it about math, this game is about making subjective judgments on the basis of tone, language choice, and reasoning. I'm not going to ignore it if I have an instinct about someone, because those instincts have served me well, if not flawlessly, in the past.
3. The case against dotchan was a great big steaming pile of nothing. Apart from speculation on the name of her role, I never heard a single convincing argument that she had done something scummy. The fact that a big bandwagon had developed (twice!) against a player on evidence that went beyond flimsy into nonexistent strongly suggested to me that we were headed down a road that wasn't a good road.
So there you have it. I had a pretty strong feeling that dot was going to be prove to be Crew. Call it 95%. I don't think I'm alone. I think a fair number of Crewpeople voted for dot because they were frustrated with the Day, frantic for a target, bullied into feeling that they had to vote for her or be considered scummy - because they had been convinced that a no-lynch was the worst possible outcome - but not because they believed her to be scum.
So now she's dead. My certainty has increased from (a hypothetical) 95% to 100%. Was that 5% increase in certainty worth the reduction in the Crew number? Well, obviously, I don't think so. Just as obviously, others do.
Blaster Master, you tend to accuse others of "twisting logic" when they don't agree with your conclusions, whether you yourself are scum or not scum. You did it to me yesterDay after my argument in favor of a no-lynch. I will now outline my logic in the simplest terms possible, to forestall any additional discussion of twisting:
One should vote for those who he/she considers likely to be scum. If I don't think someone is likely to be scum, I will not vote for them just to increase my certainty on that point. I most certainly will not for them just because you think I should, or because I'm going to get your vote if I don't. Likewise, if a sizable number of people in the town don't think someone is likely to be scum, we should not be lynching that someone just to increase our collective certainty on that point.
We should be lynching people that we think are scum. We should not be lynching people that most of think are not. Period. Full stop.
My secondary point, which I made, but badly, yesterDay, is that by putting such emphasis on the idea that 'we must have a lynch no matter what,' we create an environment where getting a lynch, period, is more important than getting a good lynch. It's a dangerous mindset. It causes us to rush from target to target, so afraid that we might not get a lynch that we fail to consider whether our reasons for that lynch are good (or whether, as they were yesterDay, our reasons are made of air).
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 18:55:38 GMT -5
Post by whatthefrak on Sept 24, 2007 18:55:38 GMT -5
Although, I tried to say something like that, I wish I had said it like you just did.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 20:21:53 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Sept 24, 2007 20:21:53 GMT -5
3. The case against dotchan was a great big steaming pile of nothing. Apart from speculation on the name of her role, I never heard a single convincing argument that she had done something scummy. The fact that a big bandwagon had developed (twice!) against a player on evidence that went beyond flimsy into nonexistent strongly suggested to me that we were headed down a road that wasn't a good road. Pardon me, but from what she said earlier on Day One about people narrowing it down for scum, she was plain, flat-out wrong about that. I knew she was...but I didn't know why she was thinking how she did or why she kept on insisting that's what everyone who was stating their win conditions and and alignment were doing. That led me to believe one of two things: 1. She was lying. 2. She was making a very nonsensical assumption. Either way, her PM had to have read different from my own, however since my win condition and alignment is the same as dnooman's, I didn't see her likely as that either. And at the time I first voted for her, the whole name thing hadn't even come out yet. That was just icing on the cake. So I have to disagree on points one and three you made, respectfully. You say you didn't see anything, but others seemed to. I really, truly was suspicious of her. Then nobody will ever be being lynched in the Day time in this game. Suppose everyone thinks different people are scum? All that will do is give us, every Day, 4 votes on one person, three on another, five on this one, etc. We need thirteen on ONE person. But what if there aren't thirteen people who find one, single, player scum? Then we continually have no-lynch.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 21:04:59 GMT -5
Post by whatthefrak on Sept 24, 2007 21:04:59 GMT -5
Spaceman I sort of see where you're going with your argument in Post #87, but my main problem with your math is that you're attempting to quantify knowledge a person has. And as Kate Bush once said:
Knowledge is something you can never have.
If you define knowledge a person has as a quantity, what happens when you start adding the knowledge people have together? You get weird things that don't really work on a set of numbers.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 24, 2007 21:13:16 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 24, 2007 21:13:16 GMT -5
Pardon me, but from what she said earlier on Day One about people narrowing it down for scum, she was plain, flat-out wrong about that. I knew she was...but I didn't know why she was thinking how she did or why she kept on insisting that's what everyone who was stating their win conditions and and alignment were doing. That led me to believe one of two things: 1. She was lying. 2. She was making a very nonsensical assumption. Either way, her PM had to have read different from my own, however since my win condition and alignment is the same as dnooman's, I didn't see her likely as that either. I never understood this. Not even a little bit. I rather suspect that several people drew different conclusions from the same role PM, and that lead to a whole lot of meta-suspicion that worked out rather poorly. One of the things that seems to get in the way a lot in these games is the tendency to say - "I don't like that you said X, and ergo you must be scum." I just never saw anything dot did as particularly scummy - name claim aside. You did? Fine. You voted for her; all is right with the world. But there were people who didn't see her as scummy who voted for her anyway, and that's where I have a problem. If that happens, then - with respect - we, collectively, suck at this game. Every other Day since I've been playing and watching this game has ended with a consensus on who was most likely to be scum. YesterDay ended with a consensus regarding who to lynch - without real consensus that the target was likely to be scum. I think that's not good. Milage may vary, and obviously does.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 0:06:34 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 25, 2007 0:06:34 GMT -5
I also don't know why they would target me ( my biggest push was on Dio=scum, and if he is it makes no sense for the Alliance to bump me off and draw attention to it.) So my assumption is that I was targeted by someone who had no information about me, and it was more or less random. That's an easy one to WIFOM (ah the beauty of it). If we actually over-analyzed deaths, we could then look and see you were highly suspicious of Dio. You're dead. Therefore, Occam's Razor would state that Dio is probably newbie (it IS his first game) and perhaps he's a newbie killing role of some sort that didn't want you accusing him continually. So by you dying, it's an easy way to throw WIFOM onto Dio then, who if scum saw he WASN'T scummy, could then do something like Sinjin's earlier claims and try to cast doubt on his investigatory powers. So your death could then be used to try to destroy the credibility of an investigatory role. It's the fun things with WIFOM that you can do, and one reason i don't like "over analyzing deaths" as to WHY a person died, just focus on WHO tried to kill them, SK or alliance and move on then. ~~~ And yes, I'll admit it. I didn't buy Ramirochan's claims of townieness. I felt she could have easily copied what Dnoo had said, and her previous behavior was inconsistent. I too am also anti-No lynch so you can put me into that camp as well. However, I am also in the camp of voting who you believe is the scummiest. So i vote Dotchan, considered Mad, but after his roleclaim, felt quite confident w/ my original vote on RamiroChan. So for you perhaps 5% certainty was gained, but for me it was much more. As i didn't believe her role claim, and I didn't believe her to be town. I wasn't 95% sure of her townieness, and I was curious to see who was advocating a no lynch at the last moment, esp. after saying they WOULD vote for Ramiro (as opposed to giving a REASON at least for not voting or voting). Basically I dislike the people that did things without giving a GOOD REASON for doing their actions. One reason why my vote is currently where it is. Since this day has began, many people have come forth and given great reasons as to why they thought the way they did for voting for or against RamiroChan. However, one person is of the mindset that its okay to keep that sort of information to themselves if "others have already said it". That i dislike, however, I am waiting to hear from them, and their ideas on the game. I will always at the end of the day vote for who i consider is the most suspicious, and I will always vote. I will only abstain if I am unable to process the data or if I am to be away.
|
|
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 25, 2007 0:09:23 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 25, 2007 0:09:23 GMT -5
<snip> If that happens, then - with respect - we, collectively, suck at this game. Every other Day since I've been playing and watching this game has ended with a consensus on who was most likely to be scum. YesterDay ended with a consensus regarding who to lynch - without real consensus that the target was likely to be scum. I think that's not good. Mileage may vary, and obviously does. I'm very torn on this subject, as was evidenced by my last minute (literally) hammer vote at the end of the Day. Although I can agree that not having a real consensus that a given target is scum can be bad for the town, at the same time, not being able to come to a consensus about who to lynch is also bad. I think, although in retrospect, yesterDay's lynch target was not beneficial to the town, per se, it did force more than half the town to come together and say, "Okay, this is the person that a plurality of the town thinks is scummy, and should be lynched today. I may or not agree about this person's scummyness, but I will band together with said plurality to ensure that a lynch is successful." IMHO, this is necessary to keep us from "sucking at this game." If none of us ever sway, because we don't think the person in question is scummy, when 7/16 of the town has their votes on one person, 4/16 have their votes on another, and there are five one-off votes... well, we're effectively letting this game be decided by the scum, and any other night-faction killers there may be.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 3:22:16 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 25, 2007 3:22:16 GMT -5
Morning everybody,
Right, following on from the night, I see the game has actually got much further.
Concerning panamajack and the attempt on his life. My guess is a Crusader type role from M5. 50% chance to succeed.
We will not find out until tonight, whether or not there is another killing role or not. Frankly, I would prefer to spend today concentrating on lynching scum instead of pondering what happened last night. After a couple more nights, we should start to have a better idea of why people are killed and how many killers there are.
Pygmy Rugger: Thank you for answering. Yes it was me who mentioned it last time, but I asked again as I did not get an answer.
atarus, sinjin: Thank you for your answers as well.
Blaster Master: You have managed to write a half page of maths where 5 lines of english would do. Yes, I do follow it, in part I agree with it. However, I do not agree with the following.
1. Your proof says that it would be better to lynch than no-lynch 2. Storyteller holds a different point of view. 3. Therefore storyteller is scum.
Sorry, that just looks like a very large OMGUS vote to me.
Storyteller: No case against zuma/dotchan. I'm sorry are we reading the same game here.Several people thought she was scummy throughout the day, roleclaimed when there was no need to and I put down a set of good reasons from WITHIN the game as to why she was scum. That is why I voted for her.
In terms of the roleclaiming, if dnooman had paraphrased his role details, everyone who was a vanilla townie would have voted to lynch him as they were different to their own. He had no choice but to be reasonably precise in the wording, which meant that anyone could have followed it.
I am still waiting for answers from HockeyMonkey and drainbead but if I had to say which one was scummier, it would be HockeyMonkey
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 3:37:56 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 25, 2007 3:37:56 GMT -5
The issues with lynching.
In all the games I have seen of Mafia from the SDMB, the one thing that rarely occurs is a majority lynch, ie. having 50% of all the people voting for one person. It only happens when someone is obviously scum, or is really asking for it.
We do not have that luxury. If we want a lynch we have to do this every night and it will be easier for the scum to prevent this.
Then it just leaves the killing up to the scum and we gain a lot less information that way.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 6:23:56 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Sept 25, 2007 6:23:56 GMT -5
I am still waiting for answers from HockeyMonkey and drainbead but if I had to say which one was scummier, it would be HockeyMonkeyCould you repeat the question?
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 6:32:06 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 25, 2007 6:32:06 GMT -5
Just for drainbead. 3. Drainbead:You voted for pygmy rugger, saying he was late on all the bandwagons, but he was not a late vote on the Roosh bandwagon. Also, you voted for him, gave a brief explanation and that was the end of it. Nothing else you have said really seems to mention him at all. It seems like placing a vote for the sake of making sure you have voted. Over to you
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 6:47:05 GMT -5
Post by Captain Klutz on Sept 25, 2007 6:47:05 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. If you select "Search posts made by:" and enter you username (which in your case is "cometothedarkside" then you will get the posts you made. However, the missing posts from Day 1 look to be gone for good. Page 14 jumps from Sep 13 to Sep 18, so we've lost about 4-5 days of posts. Someone said that they appear if you do a search for a particular user, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 7:49:46 GMT -5
Post by Zeriel on Sept 25, 2007 7:49:46 GMT -5
I just wanted to pop in here to say *I* understand BlaM's mathemagical rantings. Oh beloved information theory.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 7:56:54 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Sept 25, 2007 7:56:54 GMT -5
Just for drainbead. 3. Drainbead:You voted for pygmy rugger, saying he was late on all the bandwagons, but he was not a late vote on the Roosh bandwagon. Also, you voted for him, gave a brief explanation and that was the end of it. Nothing else you have said really seems to mention him at all. It seems like placing a vote for the sake of making sure you have voted. Over to you I'm still somewhat suspicious of Pygmy, although I'm having trouble coming up with a solid reason why. He answered my questions of him directly and explained himself well, so he's on my FOS back burner unless/until I can put a finger on what has been bothering me about him. And as for not mentioning him, at the end of yesterDay it became counterproductive to keep focusing on him when we needed to focus our attentions on whether or not we were going to lynch someone. I think I made a post about that when I changed my vote, in fact.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 7:59:05 GMT -5
Post by Yattara on Sept 25, 2007 7:59:05 GMT -5
FoS on anyone who understood BlaM's math. It just shouldn't be allowed, to have a beta-mind like that, and it's a sure sign of scumminess, to think analytical like that.
|
|
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 25, 2007 8:31:34 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Sept 25, 2007 8:31:34 GMT -5
Blaster Master: You have managed to write a half page of maths where 5 lines of english would do. Yes, I do follow it, in part I agree with it. However, I do not agree with the following. 1. Your proof says that it would be better to lynch than no-lynch 2. Storyteller holds a different point of view. 3. Therefore storyteller is scum. Sorry, that just looks like a very large OMGUS vote to me. While I understand that interpretation of what I said, it was not my intention. Consider the thesis seperately from my vote for Storyteller. You state, interestingly, that I did "a half page of maths where 5 lines of english would do." I disagree with that statement at face value because I couldn't think of a way to state it any simpler and providing math allows me to show my work. However, the important point is that, while my explanation is perhaps overly complicated, I think the point itself is fairly simple and rather intuitive, ESPECIALLY in a case for a player, like Storyteller, who has a reasonable amount of experience with this game. As I stated yesterday, I specifically disagree with his his argument, and I think it is deliberately falsified by a false premise, namely, that yesterday he stated that the town has an informational advantage in this closed game. Based on my model (and my intuition) this is CLEARLY not the case. I will address this in more detail as I respond Storyteller's post.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 8:36:06 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Sept 25, 2007 8:36:06 GMT -5
As I stated yesterday, I specifically disagree with his his argument, and I think it is deliberately falsified by a false premise, namely, that yesterday he stated that the town has an informational advantage in this closed game. Based on my model (and my intuition) this is CLEARLY not the case. I will address this in more detail as I respond Storyteller's post. A few things: I'm not going to spend the whole Day trading overly-wordy arguments with you. I'm absolutely certain that this will not help the town. I would like to say, however, that I have never said that the town has an informational advantage, as you attribute above. You really should be more careful with the accuracy of your accusations. What I said was that the size of the information deficit is smaller - which is a fundamentally different thing. If you're going to call me scum because I don't share your strategic opinions, at least do it based on the opinions I actually have.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 25, 2007 9:08:12 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 25, 2007 9:08:12 GMT -5
5 lines in english.
The town has numbers and a little information, the scum are less in number but have more information. Information has value to determine player's roles. The trick for the town is to gain more info than lose players and for the scum to prevent the situation. The scum can also manipulate the value of some info to their advantage as they have more of it and only death gives certainty. The question then remains: "Does a lynching provide more value to the town in terms of info gained than the loss of the player?"
In the case of zuma/dotchan SpacemanSpiff says Yes! storyteller says No!
|
|