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 26, 2007 10:12:03 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 26, 2007 10:12:03 GMT -5
How would you know there is a scum investigator? You said that with such confidence... "the" scum investigator. That's the word I was trying to bold, but it wasn't working.
|
|
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 26, 2007 10:13:29 GMT -5
Post by Parzival on Sept 26, 2007 10:13:29 GMT -5
People voting because they don't like math? Seriously? I can't see that as a valid reason at all.
I also don't quite get the vote on storyteller, either. He may be mistaken, but I think it's clear he doesn't understand your argument, Blaster Master, so it's not like he's unwilling to change in the face of contradictory evidence (from his point of view).
SS/Blam's case is more compelling than a simplified summation, but I'll try to highlight something in the case against no-lynch. Once a person role-claims, the scum automatically know if they're telling the truth about their role and powers. This is because crew will tell the truth, which they have no reason not to. ("Lynch all liars" is the credo.) So the scum now know, in the closed game, that that role exists. The town does not. Therefore any time we push someone to a role-claim, but do not lynch, we are ceding information to the scum.
Obviously there are examples and cases where we ought not simply lynch someone (e.g. Diomedes, on the off chance he is a powerful role), but this is generally true enough that on a given Day, we gain from a lynch over no-lynch.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 10:14:56 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2007 10:14:56 GMT -5
I presented a hypothetical continuum based on someone else's hypothetical context. In my continuum example there is a hypothetical probability of lynching THE pro-town detective/investigator vs the probability of lynching THE scum detective/investigator. Period.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 10:21:33 GMT -5
Post by Mad The Swine on Sept 26, 2007 10:21:33 GMT -5
People voting because they don't like math? Seriously? I can't see that as a valid reason at all. Blam seems to know math very well.I suspect IRL he would not expain stuff with a long, confusing speech with a bunch of numbers.He must know that most people, outside his math group buddies(nerds ;D ) , would react just like most of us are with a big fat HUH?!? I think he is trying to appear helpful, while confusing the bejeezus out of us.
|
|
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 26, 2007 10:36:47 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 26, 2007 10:36:47 GMT -5
I presented a hypothetical continuum based on someone else's hypothetical context. In my continuum example there is a hypothetical probability of lynching THE pro-town detective/investigator vs the probability of lynching THE scum detective/investigator. Period. Nope. I'm not buying it. In your quoted "hypothetical continuum", you mentioned "'A' closeted pro-town detective", which to me, means you aren't sure if there's a pro-town detective or not. But, even talking about the " probability of lynching THE scum detective" makes me think you're sure there is one. My vote stands.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 10:40:10 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2007 10:40:10 GMT -5
I was sure there was one in my example because I made up my example to include the antithesis of Cat's example in order to make my point.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 10:42:44 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 26, 2007 10:42:44 GMT -5
Wow, that does seem like a pretty good catch, Pygmy. To me, that's more substantial than lynching Math Blaster (Master).
Unvote Spaceman Spiff. Vote cookies.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 10:48:16 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2007 10:48:16 GMT -5
Does anyone else want to pile on? Because there's only so much I can say in defense of using "the" vs "a" in a hypothetical statement, and why delay getting to the interesting part of the Day?
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 10:53:22 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 26, 2007 10:53:22 GMT -5
NETA: So it isn't really fair to dismiss his ideas with "What if we get really unlucky with the probability and lynch a closeted pro-town detective?" unless you also bring along the optimistic side, that there was just as much of a chance that we could hit the scum investigator. Ok, this is Cookies post and as far as I can see there are three things wrong with it. 1) In this post it is "A" (ie. a possibility if it exists) pro-town detective vs "THE" (ie. definitive, as in it does exist) scum investigator. This could be construed as extra scum knowledge. 2) SSpiff's posts had all been about the town vs the scum. So the expected vanilla townie response would be: "that there was just as much of a chance that we could hit the scum" instead of "that there was just as much of a chance that we could hit the scum investigator" 3) The most damning point is the switch from detective to investigator in the post. Why is this damning, while writing out this post I had to keep correcting myself as I kept putting in scum detective and having to change it back. Cookies: You have some explaining to do.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 10:54:22 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Sept 26, 2007 10:54:22 GMT -5
Actually, yes, I would like to pile on as well. Had you used "the" or "a" in both situations, I would think it wasn't scummy. What cookies just did, hockey, is an example of a language slip that it would be more likely for scum to make.
Has there ever been a scum detective in previous games?
unvote BLAM vote Cookies
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 10:58:41 GMT -5
Post by NAF1138 on Sept 26, 2007 10:58:41 GMT -5
Morning all:
3- ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies (Pygmy Rugger, FCoD, drainbead)
2- sinjin (Diomedes, zeriel)
1- BlasterSpiff (CatInASuit) 1- drainbead (Idle Thoughts) 1- mhaye (MadtheSwine) 1- Storyteller (Spaceman BlaM) 1- tragic (Roosh)
10 out of 25 votes cast.
With 25 alive it takes 13 to lynch.
|
|
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 26, 2007 11:01:58 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 26, 2007 11:01:58 GMT -5
I was sure there was one in my example because I made up my example to include the antithesis of Cat's example in order to make my point. It just doesn't make sense. When balancing game roles, a scum type usually counts as one, as does a detective. A scum detective, however, would count as 1.5 or 2. There is no reason we'd have to find a scum power role for it to be an even trade, in your hypothetical, to lynching a detective. A regular scum would suffice.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 11:06:30 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Sept 26, 2007 11:06:30 GMT -5
Okay, people. I've taken information theory classes, too, so I DO understand Spaceman Spiff's math. He is absolutely right in that by the rules information theory the town gains more from the information we get in a lynch than we lose in numerical advantage right now. He's also very poor at explaining it in any reasonable way, but there are people here like me who can translate. Actually, he's not that terrible at explaining it, if you don't get terrified. I'm really not seeing how Blam's math posts are scumtells... too much information? Just something the English majors don't want to see?
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 11:10:04 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 26, 2007 11:10:04 GMT -5
Does anyone else want to pile on? Because there's only so much I can say in defense of using "the" vs "a" in a hypothetical statement, and why delay getting to the interesting part of the Day? You're right, there's not really much else you can say about "the" vs. "a". So why don't you just confess! Don't worry, no one's gonna hurt you. We got lots of mercy. Lots... --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 11:24:06 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2007 11:24:06 GMT -5
This isn't going to be a waste of keystrokes, but here is my revision history of that post prior to posting it.
First draft:
"NETA: So it isn't really fair to dismiss his ideas with "What if we get really unlucky with the probability and lynch a closeted pro-town detective?" unless you also bring along the optimistic side, that there was just as much of a chance that we could hit the Godfather."
*That's a valid antithesis. Should I just use "antithesis" instead of Godfather? No that's too geeky, and I'm not feeling geeky at the moment. Hmm...I wonder if people will think that I know there is a Godfather if I use "Godfather". Which would suck, since I don't know that and I don't want to die. To be safe, I should just stick with Cat's example and do a literal antithesis.*
[delete][delete][delete][delete][delete][delete][delete][delete][delete][delete]
"NETA: So it isn't really fair to dismiss his ideas with "What if we get really unlucky with the probability and lynch a closeted pro-town detective?" unless you also bring along the optimistic side, that there was just as much of a chance that we could hit the..."
scum investigator.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 11:26:43 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2007 11:26:43 GMT -5
"isn't" should be "is" in that first line, and I don't know where that rogue double quote came from in the middle of my quote.
|
|
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 26, 2007 11:47:59 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Sept 26, 2007 11:47:59 GMT -5
Cool, now we know there's a Godfather type role, too. Thanks.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 12:09:14 GMT -5
Post by Pollux Oil on Sept 26, 2007 12:09:14 GMT -5
Wow, okay seriously, what the hell? Drainbead and FCOD, what the crap are you doing? At this point, it'll take a slight breeze to get you guys to switch votes to the next person that somebody suggests is scum.
Cat: I don't like math and Spaceman Blam hasn't answered my questions yet. Vote. Drainbead: I agree! Vote. FCOD: Me too! Vote.
Pygmy: Cookies made a possible slip-up in grammar that could be a scum tell. Vote. FCOD: Oh that's a good idea! Unvote vote. Drainbead: I like that better! Unvote vote.
Seriously. This is EXACTLY why we ended up outing so many roles yesterday. If Cookies ended up getting railroaded and outs herself as a townie or townie power role, are you guys going to just jump back onto Spaceman Blam?
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 12:22:02 GMT -5
Post by Drain Bead on Sept 26, 2007 12:22:02 GMT -5
Just because someone beats me to it doesn't mean I don't have the exact same thought they did--they just got to it first. After the most recent BLAM maths post, I was planning on voting for him no matter what. Then I saw the language slip and realized its impact, and changed my vote. Both times I would have done so regardless of what anyone else did, because I'm voting for those who are giving me reasons to think that they're scum.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 12:23:57 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2007 12:23:57 GMT -5
Cool, now we know there's a Godfather type role, too. Thanks. Regardless of what you or others believe to be hidden (or not so hidden) in my words, we really know nothing. And if it takes some suspicion coming my way to remind people that pretty much anything is possible as to roles in this game, including a scum investigator or a Godfather, then you're welcome.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 12:25:12 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 26, 2007 12:25:12 GMT -5
Wow, okay seriously, what the guay? Drainbead and FCOD, what the crap are you doing? At this point, it'll take a slight breeze to get you guys to switch votes to the next person that somebody suggests is scum. Cat: I don't like math and Spaceman Blam hasn't answered my questions yet. Vote. Drainbead: I agree! Vote. FCOD: Me too! Vote. Pygmy: Cookies made a possible slip-up in grammar that could be a scum tell. Vote. FCOD: Oh that's a good idea! Unvote vote. Drainbead: I like that better! Unvote vote. Seriously. This is EXACTLY why we ended up outing so many roles yesterday. If Cookies ended up getting railroaded and outs herself as a townie or townie power role, are you guys going to just jump back onto Spaceman Blam? I knew my vote this morning for Math Blaster was going to get me in trouble. First of all, I happened to have a suspicious feeling about him since yesterday, and since I agree with Cat, I put my vote where my mouth was. Then, Cookies made what I see as a very significant slip-up that caused me to think she is much more scummy than Math Blaster. So duh, of course I'm going to change my vote. And to answer your question, yes. If Cookies can convince me that she isn't scum, I will put my vote back on the next person I find scummiest (Math Blaster at the time of this post). --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 12:26:34 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Sept 26, 2007 12:26:34 GMT -5
And another thing: I don't shy away from placing my vote on someone because other people have already voted. In fact, I don't really care what the vote count is at this point of the Day. I will put my vote on the person I find to be the most scummy, and leave it there until I have a good reason to change it.
It always bothers me when people freak about about early voting. Votes can be changed!
--FCOD
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 12:30:02 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 26, 2007 12:30:02 GMT -5
I'm taking notice of the Cookie Slip. And I'm thinking.... My vote is currently on someone who still hasn't show up. But should we need an unlikely hammer.... <- I'll volunteer, because I'm suspicious of Cookies, but not enough yet for a full vote this early on. I'm gonna go and look back at some things first and then see if my vote is truly merited. I also need to look at what Atarus has said, because either You're the reasonable Townie this WHOLE game, and this fits your M.O. or you're scum playing the role of the level headed townie (something from Day 1 i've always felt odd about), and it fits your M.O. in that I'm starting to trust you. And that's Bad.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 13:01:47 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 26, 2007 13:01:47 GMT -5
Okay. Read back over the Cookie post. My thoughts on the "A vs. The" Debate: 1. My first thought: What the hell's a scum investigator? 2. THE Scum investigator??? 3. lynch a closeted pro-town detective?" unless you also bring along the optimistic side, that there was just as much of a chance that we could hit the scum investigator. I admit, upon reading that sentence several times, it IS a weird sentence, because I'd either put a for both of them. A detective and a scum investigator, or the detective and the investigator. Both would have the same article before them. But she didn't. That leads to thinking: Is this really an unintentional slip? --Who makes that sort of slip? A vs. The for investigator? Why would scum have investigators? Was she really trying to make an antithesis for "detective"? Why not go with Godfather or just plain "Scum".
But the main issue I have with the sentence is... Why bring up investigator at all? I mean the opposite of a pro-town role is a scum role. So the opposite of a Cop would be a scum. Any scum. The Scum "Investigator" part just... really doesn't sit well with me. But if she WAS the scum investigator what kinda idiot just reveals a role that no-one would know existed? That's my major WIFOM here.
So yeah, I do see the slip up as being scummy. But alone it's not enough to warrent a lynch. Looking back through day 2 she's been quiet, and hasnt' really said anything that's stood out to me. So i'm not going to vote for her just yet. I don't understand her "slip-up" as being indicative of scum, but i don't see it as a "normal" thing to say either. It's just... odd. Scum investigators have never appeared before, and I've never heard of the role similar to it except on one game on Mafiascum, which makes me go... buh? Why that name? Unless she REALLY just wanted an anti-detective to be a Scum detective. But that's an odd way to think.
So i don't know what to really make of it. It's odd, but its not enough to make me change my vote.
So I'm content to sit on my Tragic vote and wonder if she'll ever show up. I'm noticing that as a problem actually reading through day 2. No one ever wants to just STAY around. They show up, say something quick and "check in" and then when their issues are done, they leave. like what the guay is Sinjin doing now? It's the total opposite of day 1 lurking "oh the boards are too big! i can't post!" into now "Oh the boards are too slow! I can't think of anything!"
It's really kinda frustrating to see the people who are efficiently lurking by showing up saying nothing or reiterating others and even sometimes just saying "I'm just checking in" and then being silent as the next big dramatic thing occurs. Stop being so gorram afraid of being lynched and show up to the dance, and STAY for the whole dance! Believe in your townie innocence to save your asses! Unless you're scum, in which case, gorram you, there are a lot of you just sitting back and chilling over the drama.....
Edit Note: Fixed Coding
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 13:02:39 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Sept 26, 2007 13:02:39 GMT -5
Augh! bolding fucked up. Sorry about that.... only the italic "the" shoulda been bolded. (Can a mod fix it pwease? )
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 13:13:15 GMT -5
Post by ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies on Sept 26, 2007 13:13:15 GMT -5
NETA=Not Edited To Add (since we can't edit)
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 13:14:06 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 26, 2007 13:14:06 GMT -5
<snip> Cat: I don't like math and Spaceman Blam hasn't answered my questions yet. Vote. </snip> Ok, Lets get one thing straight. I like Maths. A lot. I am not voting for Spaceman Spiff because I don't like his maths. I am voting for him because his words and actions do not follow, and I think he is scum. Maths has nothing to do with it. In terms of Cookies, yes I think it is a very large scum tell. I am now more suspicious of Cookies than Spaceman Spiff. If Cookies winds up roleclaiming something important and town related, then I will be quite happy to go back to voting for Spaceman Spiff. At the moment these two are way out in front in terms of scumminess, although I have others I am keeping my eye on. However, I would like to hear a few more points of view before I decide to switch my vote.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 13:18:39 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Sept 26, 2007 13:18:39 GMT -5
Ahhh, damnit! Completely beaten to the punch by Rugger. That's what I get for putting things like my job ahead of paying close attention to the thread. Well, know what? I have this whole thing saved to Notepad, so I'm-a posting it! ------------------------------------------------------------------ NETA: So it isn't really fair to dismiss his ideas with "What if we get really unlucky with the probability and lynch a closeted pro-town detective?" unless you also bring along the optimistic side, that there was just as much of a chance that we could hit the scum investigator. Ummm... Cookies? "THE scum investigator"? Did you just go and say something that is sure to get you lynched? 'Cause I'm sniffing a major scum slipup right there. Pedantic Jerkwad Gangsta Thug Baby says: " Vote Cookies"!
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 14:09:47 GMT -5
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Sept 26, 2007 14:09:47 GMT -5
We're going to lynch someone based on their use of a definite article over an indefinite one? Maybe I'm just feeling the burn from lynching dotchan yesterday based on a 'scumslip', but this seems ridiculous.
|
|
|
Day Two
Sept 26, 2007 14:28:51 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Sept 26, 2007 14:28:51 GMT -5
We're going to lynch someone based on their use of a definite article over an indefinite one? Maybe I'm just feeling the burn from lynching dotchan yesterday based on a 'scumslip', but this seems ridiculous. See Mafia3 - Lemur866 - "you townies". Yes, stranger things have happened.
|
|