Cyan: You make way too many misguided arguments in every Mafia game I've ever seen you play in, and this is yet another one of them. The RB stopping a role has NEVER been a factor in any of my decisions, EXCEPT in the late game. I've never seen *any* evidence of people feeling more secure by knowing there's an RB in the game. You are making factually baseless arguments with only your own perception to back it up, and honestly, I don't put much faith in that perception based on previous games.
The argument that the Mafia will always want to publicly out power roles is naive. What Mafia would *ideally* prefer is to keep that information secret while discerning it on their own. It is much better for the Mafia to identify and kill a cop before the cop ever becomes public.
Now, of course there are going to be times where the Mafia can also benefit from public information. But I don't agree with you that the Mafia has "every reason" to want to out the RB here - especially if trying to do so means people like you are going to declare them scummy simply based on that. If the Mafia were smart, they would see no pressing need to identify the RB at this point in the game, UNLESS that RB actually *did* prevent a kill.
Perhaps the Mafia isn't even that smart? I don't know, but I think it's way too early to be assuming that outing an RB is automatically a scum play. Particularly when it's coming from Fayul - I've played with her enough that I have a sense of how her mind works, and she's been known to propose plans like this. I admit it's possible she is scum, but I've seen no other evidence in her posts to support such a conclusion.
This makes no sense. A townie would not lie (through omission) and force the rb'er to out himself.
unvote VOTE WoLG
You completly missed the whole point of the post you are quoting. It's wifom to say that only a townie would come out and say they were roleblocked, and also to say that someone that doesn't come out and was roleblocked is scum. There are several different reasons/justifications for why a townie player would not want to come out if they were roleblocked.
Quite a few people seem to be forgetting the possibility of a scum RB'er. Outing a townie who may or may not have a power-role for the chance to possibly almost have the chance of catching a scum based on flavor of a PM is not something I'm willing to try.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Cyan: You make way too many misguided arguments in every Mafia game I've ever seen you play in, and this is yet another one of them. The RB stopping a role has NEVER been a factor in any of my decisions, EXCEPT in the late game. I've never seen *any* evidence of people feeling more secure by knowing there's an RB in the game. You are making factually baseless arguments with only your own perception to back it up, and honestly, I don't put much faith in that perception based on previous games.
I didn't say that it's a factor in a person's decisions. I said that, when making such a decision, it is always in the back of one's mind that a RB exists, and this affects the decisions that one makes. That is reality. For you to deny it is nothing but vanity on your part. There is no 'evidence' for you to see, because it's not something that would come up in conversation. It is simply part of the human thought process. It has less to do with mafia than human psychology, in general, applied to a mafia context. I honestly don't care if you put any faith in it, because I know that I'm right.
The argument that the Mafia will always want to publicly out power roles is naive. What Mafia would *ideally* prefer is to keep that information secret while discerning it on their own. It is much better for the Mafia to identify and kill a cop before the cop ever becomes public.
Yes, you're right. However, the only way to 'discern' the identity of said power roles is either A)speculation that may or may not be correct, and can't very effectively be used in the decision making process(as far as mafia actions go), or B)role-based knowledge. Obviously if the mafia have a role cop or some such role and learn something, they would want to keep that information to themselves. But that circumstance is few and far between. Under normal circumstances, the mafia will always be in favor of a power role being outed. Honestly, I fail to see why we are having this conversation. It's pretty simple. For hypothetical purposes, say that you're mafia. Your team doesn't have a role cop. Would you be in favor of the Cop coming out and saying 'I'm the Cop'? I have to say that you would, for a host of reasons, ranging from the fact that any Doctor protection in the game is now tied up to the fact that the playerbase, which you are a part of, will now try to guide the Cop's investigations, giving the mafia a chance to avoid being investigated, or act accordingly if they know one of them will be.
Now, of course there are going to be times where the Mafia can also benefit from public information. But I don't agree with you that the Mafia has "every reason" to want to out the RB here - especially if trying to do so means people like you are going to declare them scummy simply based on that. If the Mafia were smart, they would see no pressing need to identify the RB at this point in the game, UNLESS that RB actually *did* prevent a kill.
Fayul's plan was scummy, period. She suggested that our RB out himself AND the person that he targeted, and went further to suggest that we should lynch them both, and that if we did, even though we'd lose 2 lynches, we would 'gain alot of information'(which really isn't true) and that this would almost offset killing 2 townies. I really don't get how you can look at what she said and think that it is not scummy.
Perhaps the Mafia isn't even that smart? I don't know, but I think it's way too early to be assuming that outing an RB is automatically a scum play. Particularly when it's coming from Fayul - I've played with her enough that I have a sense of how her mind works, and she's been known to propose plans like this. I admit it's possible she is scum, but I've seen no other evidence in her posts to support such a conclusion.
I don't really get what's so hard to grasp here. Outing the RB right now would not benefit the town in even the most remote sense. It would absolutely benefit the mafia, especially if, as according to Fayul's plan,
we lynched the claimed townie and then lynched the RB when the initial blocked person came up town.
As for the mafia not being smart, I always assume that the mafia consists of the smartest players. It doesn't really make any sense not to. Yeah, it's possible that the mafia is full of idiots, but playing according to this mentality is only going to encourage extremely sloppy play that the mafia will exploit. If you assume that the mafia is smarter than you, you will play your best game. If it turns out that, in reality, they're not smart, you'll just win more easily. You should always err on the side of caution.
Cyan, you have some serious misconceptions about the way people approach Mafia. Your belief that you are always right is your own vanity. But whatever - there is no need to continue this issue, because a theoretical debate with you will never go anywhere.
You are still basing your assessment of Fayul's scumminess purely on flaws in her plan. I've checked her posts for scummy behavior; other than proposing an incompletely thought-out plan, I haven't seen anything. The plan doesn't make her scum - you seem to be thinking that townies have never proposed questionable plans.
You say you assume the Mafia consists of the smartest players; just how far does your assumption extend? Because I don't see Mafia openly trying to draw out a town power role as "smart."
You also mention "extremely sloppy play that the mafia will exploit," which is actually what I'm starting to get the feeling is going on here. My notes on you have you leaning only slightly scum, but your persistence in this is making me reevaluate.
You could just read my posts, you'd reach these conclusions a bit earlier
To help you out a bit, the next step in this reasoning is that unless the mafia have daytalk (which they probably don't), only the actual mafia killer could know what went wrong with their kill, which makes some reactions even more interesting since the mafia's killer may well have been trying to hint to his/her colleagues what actually happened to the kill. And if it really was a roleblock, Fayul's plan is obviously terrible.
The step after that is that Fayul may have planned for people to reject her plan, so this doesn't help us with her (or DYH, for that matter) one way or the other.
Don't you take that tone with me young man. I am actually way ahead of you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
As I said, I always assume that the mafia is smarter than me. But that doesn't mean that they can't make mistakes, which is what I think happened here. The problem is not that her plan wasn't thought-out. If that was it, it wouldn't be a big deal. The problem is that Fayul suggested a plan, then half-explained why it is a bad idea, then later persisted that we should go through with it anyway, particularly insinuating that it would be okay to lose a town RB and another town role of whatever variety, because 'we would gain alot of information'. I think that Fayul messed up, and then when she tried to clarify her position, instead just dug herself in deeper.
Also, Fade, what are you trying to accomplish with statements like:
Quote from Fadeblue »
My notes on you have you leaning only slightly scum, but your persistence in this is making me reevaluate.
Are you trying to intimidate me into backing down? Do you really think that would work? If I think someone is scum, nothing is wrong with that. If you want to disagree, nothing is wrong with that either. But trying to threaten me by saying you might see me as more scummy because of it is ridiculous.
I don't see why you see it as "threatening" or "intimidating" you. I'm telling you honestly that I feel your persistence here is starting to look very much non-townish. This is me indicating to you, and the rest of the town, that you're starting to warrant attention (just as if I had simply said "I think Cyan is starting to look suspicious").
Go ahead and continue pushing this if you want. I have no problems with that. But I'm certainly not joining along, as my current read of Fayul is leaning town. And I'm advising others not to follow you either.
As I said, I always assume that the mafia is smarter than me.
Well, that narrows it down.
As I said earlier, Fayul's plan would be tremendously risky for a scum, since she should have no way of knowing yet whether or not there really is a town roleblocker who blocked a scum last night. This doesn't mean she's NOT scum, she could have relied on people rejecting the plan or she could have taken a risk. Nonetheless, the plan is inherently risky (for town and scum), not inherently scummy. The scum probably have better odds from it, but it's a bit early in the game to gamble like that for either side.
I think DYH and Kenji were right, concerning what Cyan is doing and the tone of his posts. He found a townie with her neck stuck out, and he's been a bit too eager to take a swing and paper over logic gaps (e.g. Cyan said that Fayul provided real reasons against her own plan, but also argues that she intended for the town to follow the plan and hurt itself, and finds both to be scummy. I would have thought the honest recognition of actual problems in t was a point in her favour, she didn't try to claim it was all shiny happy rainbows).
Cyan's also been happy to throw some casual suspicion DYH's way, once Axelrod led off in that regard. Yay barning suspicion without adding much more than "your play seems off".
I don't see where Axelrod says anything about DYH. I've had misgivings of DYH since early in the game, but didn't say anything initially because it was too soon. I still don't have alot of hard evidence to go on, which is why I didn't change my vote or anything, just an instinctual feeling that something about DYH's play thus far isn't right. He isn't acting like his normal scum OR town self.
As for everything with Fayul, let's examine Fayul's post that started this all:
Quote from Fayul »
Idly, if there's an RB who, for whatever demented reason, fired N1, he should probably claim target unless he has a good reason not to do so. Town RB's aren't gigantically high powered, and we have a good percentage play on whoever he claims to target. And if it's a scum RB, well, then we have a higher percentage play on him if the target does turn up town. It might cost us a disastrous situation later if the scum attempt to pursue a town RB, but that doesn't seem likely, and converting day 1 from what is essentially a random lynch into a plan backed up by information, which provides a pretty good edge for the town.
First, Fayul claims that we have a 'good percentage play' on whomever he targeted. This is a lie. The percentage chance that the person randomly targetted by a RB on N1 is scum is very low. The percentage of chance that this person is not only mafia but submitted the mafia kill is even lower, to the tune of 1/19, in this game. Not exactly great odds for outing a RB over, let alone for lynching someone over.
Next, Fayul states that, if the person lynched is town, and the RB is scum, then we have a 'higher percentage play on him'. What is missing here is how we came to the determination that the RB is scum to begin with, when there is an equal likelihood that said RB is town. Fayul also throws in random statements that have nothing to do with anything, like 'town RBs aren't gigantically high powered'. All that this statement does is discredit any RB that might come forward, in advance, in the eyes of the town. Later in the post, Fayul briefly acknowledges the fact that this plan 'could be'(in reality, is much more likely than not to be) disastrous to the town, but states that this would be offset by the amount of information gained. Of course, that really isn't true at all, because following Fayul's plan, very little information would actually be gained, while multiple town roles would be lynched.
In any case, though, a successful doccing might be pretty likely, too.
Note that this is included as an obvious afterthought, most likely with the intent having it to fall back on, but without really wanting anyone to take it seriously.
As an aside, statements like 'Fayul's plan would be tremendously risky for a scum' are exactly why scum can get away with making plays like these. Someone will always bring WIFOM into the fray to try and give the person too much credit. Sometimes, you just have to see something for what it is, and in this case, Fayul's play is terrible for the town, and extremely beneficial for the mafia.
I don't see where Axelrod says anything about DYH.
If that's true, then you're the one who's playing sloppy. Axelrod mentions DYH in #48, #59, #75, #80, and #87.
As for the probability argument, I want to stay mostly away because I do believe an RB stopping the kill is not as likely as Fayul believes (and especially not as likely as a doc protect), but I want to at least point out this: while the *a priori* probability of the RB stopping the kill is 1/19, the Bayesian probability is at least higher than that, if we're assuming that there was a prevented kill last night (which seems to be the common theory). It's still not significantly high (I think), but it's not as low as it seems.
Even if there was a prevented kill, which is the most logical/safest conclusion(it's possible that the mafia just missed submitted their kill, but, this line of thinking is dangerous), it is significantly more likely that the Doc just protected the chosen target than that the RB targeted the one person that would have carried out the action.
And yes, somehow, I appear to have missed alot of Axel's posts. No excuse for that on my part, but you're right that it was sloppy.
Honestly, I fail to see why we are having this conversation. It's pretty simple. For hypothetical purposes, say that you're mafia. Your team doesn't have a role cop. Would you be in favor of the Cop coming out and saying 'I'm the Cop'? I have to say that you would, for a host of reasons, ranging from the fact that any Doctor protection in the game is now tied up to the fact that the playerbase, which you are a part of, will now try to guide the Cop's investigations, giving the mafia a chance to avoid being investigated, or act accordingly if they know one of them will be.
One moment. This isn't terribly relevant to my case, but I think I get where Fade is coming from when he comments on your perceptions-
Tied up on the cop? As a townie, is there any other role you'd rather have the doc protecting?
On the flip side, regardless of how good a scum player I might be, or my partners, there's nothing more scary than an active cop with doc protection. Nothing says lynch-fodder quite like "guilty". (see poor Axelrod in the case of Court Mafia.)
Quote from Cyan »
Even if there was a prevented kill, which is the most logical/safest conclusion(it's possible that the mafia just missed submitted their kill, but, this line of thinking is dangerous), it is significantly more likely that the Doc just protected the chosen target than that the RB targeted the one person that would have carried out the action.
Not true. At its base level, it is still one townie firing into a crowd of 19 others either way. Or am I missing something?
Quote from Cyan »
And yes, somehow, I appear to have missed alot of Axel's posts. No excuse for that on my part, but you're right that it was sloppy.
...and my play seems "off"? You're not this sloppy.
Even if there was a prevented kill, which is the most logical/safest conclusion(it's possible that the mafia just missed submitted their kill, but, this line of thinking is dangerous)
Not to mention practically impossible. You did notice how everyone had to confirm and Hvir had to hold off starting the day due to a couple of people being extremely late confirmers?
it is significantly more likely that the Doc just protected the chosen target than that the RB targeted the one person that would have carried out the action.
I'm inclined to agree, but mostly because I don't believe in town RBs firing night 0. If there is a town RB and he did fire night 0, it's a fairly equal chance that he/she targeted the killer as to the doc targetting the victim. I think it tilts towards doc or nightkill immune townie just because the likelihood is two missed kills.
This isn't really a probability discussion, though. That's heading off into carrion pigeons territory and isn't especially relevant.
And yes, somehow, I appear to have missed alot of Axel's posts. No excuse for that on my part, but you're right that it was sloppy.
Sloppy or you just didn't have any better way to explain away your apparent barning.
Later on I'm going to see if I can prove you a liar on not seeing Axel's posts at all; that's just too convenient for you for me to be happy with.
The time for random voting is over? Fine unvote. A lot has happened in forty eight hours or so since I was last online.
I agree with WoLG. What possible reason would a roleblocked individual have to come forward? They’d be slaughtered. That’s no help to any team they’re on. Thus, playing well, they won’t do it.
Quote from RafaelK »
Actually, I think that if we assume two killers, it's most likely that they went for the same target and that target was a protected or kill-immune townie, rather than two separate kills were stopped by two separate things. Requires the fewest lucky actions to work.
Stupid Razor. No, I’m just frustrated I didn’t get there first. In all likelihood there was a tremendous convergence on someone. This brings up a number of speculative truths. It’s worth thinking about if not discussing.
On DYH: I’ve read a number of posts describing DYH play as scummy. But no one has stepped up and made anything close to a convincing case. Why? There’s just not the evidence for a convincing case. It just feels wrong. This kind of thinking is going to get us into trouble.
On Fayul: The plan post was an ambiguous attempt to start discussion during the lackadaisical springtime of the game. When it drew fire she had no choice but to clarify. Clarifying therefore does nothing to distinguish her alignment. The original post may. Was it out of place at an early stage? Did it lack merit? I’m leaning towards no. I don’t think her plan is the correct play, but I’m not sure that’s reason to try to lynch Fayul.
On Cyan: Eagerness is not scummy. Eagerness to harm the town is scummy. I find harm in an attack pushed too far, too fast, without adequate evidence, and without adequate application of ration. But not enough harm to warrant a vote. We must lynch someone today, and it is quite possible for a townie to be too zealous in their pursuit. I would know, I’ve been there. In conclusion, it’s not enough evidence to warrant a lynch.
So who would I like to see lynched? No one, yet. We have all the time in the world.
The problem is that Fayul suggested a plan, then half-explained why it is a bad idea, then later persisted that we should go through with it anyway, particularly insinuating that it would be okay to lose a town RB and another town role of whatever variety, because 'we would gain alot of information'.
So because I adressed the drawbacks of my plan makes me scum? Honestly, I don't get it. I don't think my plan is an end-all-be-all solution, but i think it provides a mathematical edge.
Honestly, only one person has addressed the mathematics of my plan to an even nearly rational agree. Everyone just said "well it might lynch two townies so it's obv scum." Yes, it can lynch two townies. So can -any other plan of action we follow, at all-. Any other way we play has potential for failure.
Ugh. I think Cyan is probably town. This seems like his normal town play. This analysis -digusts- me, because his logic is so specious and inflammatory, but, ultimately, this seems to be the way he plays.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
@DYH: To address your earlier statement about Axelrod: For one, casually mentioning a plan that 'might work and might not because you haven't thought it through greatly' strikes me as just being honest about rational about said plan. Fayul promoted her plan, and then provided actual reasons as to why it wouldn't work. Furthermore, Fayul's plan is significantly more likely to be damaging to the town and beneficial to the mafia, whereas the negative aspect of Axel's plan is fairly minor.
That having been said, I still don't like Axel's plan, because A)a scum is most likely not going to come forward and put themself in the spotlight in this situation. Honestly, even a smart townie wouldn't do so. To me, that suggestion(which I simply missed before it was pointed out) seems somewhat suspicious, as though Axelrod is just trying to force some information into the open, but said information being in the open really wouldn't help the town any. It's questionable, especially coming from Axelrod, but it is not nearly as downright scummy as Fayul's play was. As such, my vote will be staying where it is.
And speaking of scaremongering, DYH's statement that I'm just picking on Fayul because she is known for lurking and erratic play IS scaremongering, because he is trying to play on people's emotion to discourage another player from taking an action that is logically sound. I cannot be held responsible for Fayul's playstyle, and a person's playstyle should never be used to try to discourage other people from voting them, especially in this fashion.
I'm really starting to wonder about you this game, DYH. Your play has been thoroughly off. I know that you know how to play as mafia as well as town, so I'm having a little trouble figuring out what is going on, but something isn't sitting right at all.
I can't prove which of Axelrod's posts you read and which you didn't.
I can't prove that you read the bit in DYH's post, all of three words before he attacked you, where he mentioned Axelrod attacking him.
But given the amount of effort that has been going into your posts, and since you addressed Axelrod's posts directly, shortly after he made posts attacking DYH, you will understand aht I think you're lying.
Ugh. I think Cyan is probably town. This seems like his normal town play. This analysis -digusts- me, because his logic is so specious and inflammatory, but, ultimately, this seems to be the way he plays.
We all thought that in Star Trek Mafia too, when Cyan won as mafia.
For me to admit to sloppy play is a big deal. I pride myself on being both active and attentive; I just didn't pay attention to Axel's posts.
As far as the likelihood of a successful Doc protection vs. a successful RB, it's not the same. The Doctor has a much more narrow pool of candidates to choose from for his N0 protection. I mean, let's face it, maybe 1/2(probably less) of the players in this game face any risk of dying N0. But anyone could be a scum committing an NK.
@DYH: My admission of sloppy play doesn't magically make your play better. You are definetely off this game. Just because I can't put alot of hard evidence to it now doesn't mean that I won't in the future. Also, to address something specific. You said:
Quote from DYH »
Tied up on the cop? As a townie, is there any other role you'd rather have the doc protecting?
On the flip side, regardless of how good a scum player I might be, or my partners, there's nothing more scary than an active cop with doc protection. Nothing says lynch-fodder quite like "guilty". (see poor Axelrod in the case of Court Mafia.)
By this logic, the Cop should just out himself at the outset of every game because then the Doc can protect him. But how often does that happen? That's right, never. Why do you think that is?
Lastly, statements like the following are why I'm having such a big problem w/ Fayul in this game:
Quote from Fayul »
Honestly, only one person has addressed the mathematics of my plan to an even nearly rational agree. Everyone just said "well it might lynch two townies so it's obv scum." Yes, it can lynch two townies. So can -any other plan of action we follow, at all-. Any other way we play has potential for failure.
For one thing, at least 3 people have directly addressed the mathematical fallacies in Fayul's initial post. So to say that 'only one person' has done so is simply not true. Also, Fayul is *still* trying to promote an idea that is ridiculously bad for the town. Not only that, but, promoting it against the idea that we might lynch two townies in that time anyway is absurd. For one thing, the statistical likelihood of lynching two townies if we follow Fayul's plan is very high, whereas by just playing the game normally we have at least a 1/4 chance of lynching scum, not to mention whatever information we gain along the way. Trying to circumvent the normal game process and instead lynch someone that is probably town and then a RB, a major town role, which is also probably town, is ridiculous. There is no comparison between the two.
I addressed those points of Axelrod's because DYH brought to light the fact that he felt I got on Fayul's case for something but ignored Axelrod doing the same thing(this was in this post). Like I said, it's hard for me to admit that I just didn't pay attention to what Axelrod was saying for an entire page of posts, but, that is the truth. It certainly won't happen again, though.
By this logic, the Cop should just out himself at the outset of every game because then the Doc can protect him. But how often does that happen? That's right, never. Why do you think that is?
Actually, from what I understand it happened all the time in newbie games on 'Scum, which was the reason the random setup (you might have a doc, a cop, or both) was created. Our solution here on MTGS was to add a mafia roleblocker. Serves the same purpose.
Clearly, since most normal games are not open setup, the cop coming forward day one doesn't happen- the scum might have a way to neutralize the doctor, and/or the town might not have one (which I think I have yet to see).
Did I ever mention that I apparantly have ADD and also can't spll?
I believe I am supposed to be voting DYH rith now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
I still hold my stance though, even now Fayul is holding her "plan" as giving the town a "mathematical edge"... which it doesn't... at all.
Do people -think-? Okay, let's see here. Let's examine the situations mathematically.
There is a chance that the doctor hit. In which case, we're still playing the game -normally-, with no drawbacks, because if the RB claims, if he even EXISTS, there's a random chance that he randomly happened to hit a non-killing scum, the same chance that he would have by us "playing the game normally." Therefore, mathematically, the plan creates no mathematical drawback to this situation. It has the potential for failure, but so does lynching "normally." And, of course, if there is no RB, we lose absolutely nothing and continue normally.
There is also a chance that an RB hit the kill, which, mathematically, if both the RB and the doctor are in the game, is equal to the chance that the doctor hit, if both fired. In which case, we benefit. ding ding ding.
Worst case scenario is that he cast suspincion (NOT an auto-lynch, people) on a completely random player, and, if that random palyer is town, on the townie roleblocker, a weak power role. Of course, there is the chance that the claimed roleblocker is not, in fact, town.
The more I explore my plan the -better- it seems to become, mathematically. before making this analysis I never took into account the fact that the RB could have hit a random, non-killing scum even while a doc did hit the protect, which more or less negates the only drawbacks of the worst case scenario relative to regular town play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
You're accusing ME of not thinking?? Wow, that's the pot calling the kettle black. Once again this entire post muddles whether or not we're going to lynch someone if the RB claims. Let's go over this plan,
There is a chance that the doctor hit. In which case, we're still playing the game -normally-, with no drawbacks, because if the RB claims, if he even EXISTS, there's a random chance that he randomly happened to hit a non-killing scum, the same chance that he would have by us "playing the game normally." Therefore, mathematically, the plan creates no mathematical drawback to this situation. It has the potential for failure, but so does lynching "normally." And, of course, if there is no RB, we lose absolutely nothing and continue normally.
Well, let's ignore the case if there is no RB for a second. In this part you're assuming that the doctor hit, and saying that there's no drawback to the RB claiming, because he might have hit a non-killing scum. So in this part do you lynch the person he blocked or not? Because you don't know if it was the RB or the doc.
There is also a chance that an RB hit the kill, which, mathematically, if both the RB and the doctor are in the game, is equal to the chance that the doctor hit, if both fired.
Absolutely false. Unless, ya know, you ignore the fact that not everyone would be a N0 target, whereas anyone could be performing the mafia kill.
Worst case scenario is that he cast suspincion (NOT an auto-lynch, people) on a completely random player, and, if that random palyer is town, on the townie roleblocker, a weak power role. Of course, there is the chance that the claimed roleblocker is not, in fact, town.
Here all of a sudden we DON'T lynch the person the RB claims they blocked. Hmm... what happened to "ding ding ding"? For another thing, I'd like to say that casting suspicion on two townies is NOT a good thing, and is in fact a BAD thing. Also, you don't even go into the scenario where the RB is scum, you just ignore it altogether.
The more I explore my plan the -better- it seems to become, mathematically. before making this analysis I never took into account the fact that the RB could have hit a random, non-killing scum even while a doc did hit the protect, which more or less negates the only drawbacks of the worst case scenario relative to regular town play.
It "looks" better to you the more you look at it because it is so full of holes and muddles logic. At one part you say "ding ding ding" because we auto-lynch a mafia, but if the person is town, all of a sudden it's NOT an auto-lynch and it's just casting suspicion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
There is also a chance that an RB hit the kill, which, mathematically, if both the RB and the doctor are in the game, is equal to the chance that the doctor hit, if both fired. In which case, we benefit. ding ding ding.
The probabilities are not equal.
Okay, let's make some assumptions to keep things simple. Hypothetically, let's say that the only explanations for the kill being stopped are a single town doc and a single town RB, and that the RB fired. Let's further assume (as seems to be a fair consensus) that the doc chose randomly from a pool of 5 players (we could repeat the same analysis with 6, or whatever number). And even further, let's assume there was only 1 killer, and the killer *also* chose randomly from that exact same pool of 5 players. Obviously, these are all tenuous assumptions, but let's do so for the sake of argument.
The *a priori* probability of the RB stopping the kill is 1/19. The *a priori* probability of the doc stopping the kill is 1/5. The combined *a priori* probability of one of them stopping the kill is 1 - (18/19)*(4/5) = 23/95.
Now, knowing that the kill was stopped, we calculate the *a posteriori* probabilities:
RB stopping the kill = (1/19) / (23/95) = 5/23
Doc stopping the kill = (1/5) / (23/95) = 19/23
(Note there is a 1/23 chance that both happened.)
This still tells us that the Doc protect is more likely than the RB prevention. And this will be true no matter what assumptions we make.
With these assumptions, we also come to the conclusion that there is a 5/23 chance the RB stopped the kill, which is much better than 1/19. But we don't know that it's safe to make these assumptions. The presence of other roles (such as untargetable/kill-immune roles) will lower this probability, while the presence of a second attempted kill (SK or vig) will increase this probability. The killer choosing from a different pool than the doc will also increase this probability. Meanwhile, if the RB didn't fire at all, obviously the probability becomes 0.
Finally, let's just assume the RB fired last night. If we have the RB claim his target, we would obviously place suspicion on that person. That person has a natural probability of 5-6 out of 19 of being scum, slightly better than if we chose randomly from the crowd (this assumes the RB is town). That person then has some additional probability of being scum (based on the analysis above), which means that the target is certainly more likely to be scum than a random player (exactly how much more is unknown).
Is that better than the normal route of watching people's behavior? I'm not sure.
Finally someone mathematically backs up their claim.
I didn't take into consideration the fact that the doc would likely only protect from a small pool of players, which completely throws the math in my plan off. It still looks to be favorable but it's a lot closer than I thought.
@sutherlands; We -likely- lynch the people that come out of the claim, but we don't automatic speedlynch them. They might have a reasonable explanation for what happened, or, at the very least, we obviously would need more discussion before the lynch.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, the wisdom to know the difference, and a ****ing chainsaw.
I actually pointed out awhile ago while the 5-person pool theory may not be valid. I don't think it's fair to assume that the doctor would protect only 'strong' players N0, particularly with so many of them in the game. Could easily have tried to play cat-and-mouse on a 'mid-tier' player, and/or protected someone else they consider 'good'.
So, on its base level, 1 person selecting from 19 others, both odds are equal, right?
Oh, and btw Fayul, many people have already backed up their claims mathematically, it has already been said TO YOU that people have backed up their claims mathematically, AND it has been said MULTIPLE times that your logic was flawed BECAUSE the doc would choose from a smaller pool of people. Do you really have THAT selective of eyesite, or are you scum?
I actually pointed out awhile ago while the 5-person pool theory may not be valid. I don't think it's fair to assume that the doctor would protect only 'strong' players N0, particularly with so many of them in the game. Could easily have tried to play cat-and-mouse on a 'mid-tier' player, and/or protected someone else they consider 'good'.
Which is an absolutely RETARDED assumption, IMO. But then again, the amount of second-guessing and multiple layers of WIFOM that you've done this game is enough to give anyone a headache.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
While it's a possibility that the Doc just protected some random person and it happened to be the person that was targeted for the kill, this is fairly unlikely. What is more likely is that the Doc and the mafia chose their targets from a small group of players, and of this small group, they chose the same player.
I agree that the 5-player pool is not accurate, especially not if we have to assume that both the doc and the mafia are choosing uniformly randomly from the *exact* same pool. (Technically, the assumption just requires that the Mafia chooses randomly from a subset of the doc's pool. The probability only drops if the Mafia's pool includes players not within the doc's pool.)
So they're still not equal probabilities even at the base. Remember that the doc and Mafia are choosing from slightly different pools, since the doc generally can't self-protect.
Let's say there are 4 Mafia, and they randomly kill from the other 16 players (which includes the doc). The doc chooses randomly from the other 19 players. Then there are 15 possible targets they could both choose. For each of those, there's a (1/16)*(1/19) chance the doc protects, which comes out to a total 15/304 (about 4.9%), which is actually less than the RB's 1/19 (5.2%). With 5 Mafia, this becomes 14/285, which is still about 4.9%.
Of course, all of this analysis assumes the doc and Mafia are choosing completely randomly, which I don't think is a good assumption to make. There is at least some tendency towards better players, which makes for some kind of uneven probability distribution.
I would say even the RB doesn't select completely randomly; I would imagine the RB is also more likely to target high-profile players because of the greater possible information, while the Mafia are more likely to assign a lower-profile player to make the kill (if possible; the distribution of roles among the Mafia may change that, but since the role assignment is random, we can assume equality without loss of generality).
This is why I don't want to rely on arguments using flat probability distributions. There's no way we can make assumptions with any guarantee of being even close to the actual probabilities.
It seems sort of silly to ridicule a company for marketing efforts. Of course they are going to hype upcoming products, every company on the face of the planet does it, and it works, thats why they do it. There isn't really any sense complaining about it. If you don't like the marketing, ignore it.
Mostly because the cop runs the risk of being roleblocked permanently. Or in more interesting games, daykilled. Or recruited. Or killed before he gets a good result if the mafia find the doc early. Etc.
The reason we put a maia roleblocker into newbie games is exactly so that the cop can't come out day 1 and just dominate the game until and unless the mafia get lucky and hit the doc.
If not for games being designed against it, it wouldn't be a terrible idea, since it avoids the cop being randomly killed before the doc knows who to protect (and avoids the cop being randomly vigged).
[quote]For one thing, the statistical likelihood of lynching two townies if we follow Fayul's plan is very high, whereas by just playing the game normally we have at least a 1/4 chance of lynching scum, not to mention whatever information we gain along the way. Trying to circumvent the normal game process and instead lynch someone that is probably town and then a RB, a major town role, which is also probably town, is ridiculous. There is no comparison between the two.
Now I'm starting to believe that you know that a scum got roleblocked last night.
I'm not saying you're wrong about Fayul's plan, although you're overstating the case, but the thing is- it's obvious that we're not using Fayul's plan. No-one is supporting Fayul's plan. But you're still campaigning hard against it. It seems to have you a bit too worried.
Clearly, since most normal games are not open setup, the cop coming forward day one doesn't happen- the scum might have a way to neutralize the doctor, and/or the town might not have one (which I think I have yet to see).
Doesn't have anything to do with this game, but- Hollywood Mafia.
The town's lack of doctor screwed the scum over, actually... I'm pretty sure we would have found the doc if they'd existed, and then killed Jobie
Oh, and I bags lynching the next person to try and make a mafia argument based on windy mathematical assumptions, because we proved that = scum on day 1 of Elegant
If I'm campaigning hard against Fayul's plan still, it's because I believe that Fayul is scum, and deserves to be lynched. This should be evident in my posts regarding matter. With that post, I was just trying to show why I thought that the plan was scummy, and not just poor play.
Oh, and I bags lynching the next person to try and make a mafia argument based on windy mathematical assumptions, because we proved that = scum on day 1 of Elegant
Oh, and btw Fayul, many people have already backed up their claims mathematically, it has already been said TO YOU that people have backed up their claims mathematically, AND it has been said MULTIPLE times that your logic was flawed BECAUSE the doc would choose from a smaller pool of people. Do you really have THAT selective of eyesite, or are you scum?
And not a one of them, Fadeblue aside, had gotten it right. Furthermore, just because you would do something as the doc on N0, doesn't mean that's the case for everyone, nor that it's a right or wrong play.
Quote from Sutherlands »
Which is an absolutely RETARDED assumption, IMO. But then again, the amount of second-guessing and multiple layers of WIFOM that you've done this game is enough to give anyone a headache.
It is possible to refute arguments or give your opinion without resorting to big capital ad-homs and insults, you know. In fact, it generally results in your opinions being taken more seriously. Again, see my point about right/wrong vs. your perception.
Think about it this way, N0 with no information, I'd contend it's probably best to doc-protect a random player. If the mafia kills outside the set of "good" players, you at least had a shot to stop the kill by that way than if you'd decided to protect a specific player-type. For example, as scum, my gut would say to hit a midrange target N0. Other players might try for a big name kill. Since you don't know who's scum and who isn't, using a random method covers all the bases. Plus, it's not as if power roles are given out to just good players, they're distributed at random as well.
@RafK: Didn't pay a whole lot of attention to Hollywood once it became apparent that I wasn't going to be needed to replace. I stand corrected.
@serge: ... again, completely confused. What exactly are you doing?
Still makes windy assumptions and isn't actually all that relevant to who's scummy or not. People by and large don't behave mathematically.
And what's "bags"?
You don't have that slang? Means "claim", pretty much. "I bags the back seat of the bus!". "I bags the last ice-cream!". "I bags first try at the tall blonde one". Stuff like that.
It is possible to refute arguments or give your opinion without resorting to big capital ad-homs and insults, you know. In fact, it generally results in your opinions being taken more seriously. Again, see my point about right/wrong vs. your perception.
Think about it this way, N0 with no information, I'd contend it's probably best to doc-protect a random player. If the mafia kills outside the set of "good" players, you at least had a shot to stop the kill by that way than if you'd decided to protect a specific player-type. For example, as scum, my gut would say to hit a midrange target N0. Other players might try for a big name kill. Since you don't know who's scum and who isn't, using a random method covers all the bases. Plus, it's not as if power roles are given out to just good players, they're distributed at random as well.
As mafia, usually you try to hit the best player that WONT be Doc protected. Sometimes, you let the better players live, to draw out those doc protections. Also, as scum each kill is good, no matter who it is on. Personally, I feel like it was probably the work of a Doc, because it just seems more reasonable, but RB has a good chance. @Cyan, I think you are scummy, as always for your persistance on bad reasoning, but this game I think you are scum for it. (You really arent scum every game, just about 2/3s). Unvote: pod, Vote: Cyan, FoS Sutherlands for bad logic. Those are my thought so far.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from hotshizzle »
<hotshizle> WINE IN FRONT OF MEAL
<hotshizle> i think
DYH: Fade is the only one who has gotten it right, huh? Well... let me see if I can parse fade's analysis correctly.
Assumption #1: There exists 1 doc, 1 RB, and the RB fired.
Assumption #2: The doc chose randomly from a pool of 5 people
Assumption #3: The killer also chose randomly from the pool of five people
Conclusion: The chance of a successful RB are 5/23 and of doc protect is 19/23 or... approximately 4x.
False conclusion: The person the RB targetted has a 5/19 chance of being scum. Not sure where this even comes from, I assume it's just an assumption that the RB is town, which is not a valid assumption. Even if this conclusion was true, a 5/19 chance is not much better than a 5/20 chance.
Now, which one of those did I not state? Hmm??
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
EBWODP:
creampuffeater: Don't be dumb. You're saying that it was likely a doc and not a RB, and that's what we're saying. Somehow we have the bad logic though... care to point that out?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
False conclusion: The person the RB targetted has a 5/19 chance of being scum. Not sure where this even comes from, I assume it's just an assumption that the RB is town, which is not a valid assumption. Even if this conclusion was true, a 5/19 chance is not much better than a 5/20 chance.
Sutherlands, if you read it right, you would see that that's the *natural* probability that the target is scum. In other words, if we assume something like 5-6 total scum in this game, then any random person has that probability of being scum. The 19 discounts the RB under the assumption that the RB is town.
I think it's a decent assumption that a claimed RB would be town. It would be fairly risky for a scum to claim RB (whether he is an actual RB or not) without knowing if a town one existed. RB is usually a counterclaimable role, as it's not often that the town has more than one RB. This is especially true if the RB is verifiable by the person being blocked.
Personally, I think you're being stubborn and intentionally trying to fault the analysis before actually making sure you understand it.
How am I trying to fault the analysis, I've said everything in there, minus that last part. Also, it IS a false conclusion, because it's a non-sequiter. Nowhere in the assumptions was the RB a town.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
The argument that the Mafia will always want to publicly out power roles is naive. What Mafia would *ideally* prefer is to keep that information secret while discerning it on their own. It is much better for the Mafia to identify and kill a cop before the cop ever becomes public.
Now, of course there are going to be times where the Mafia can also benefit from public information. But I don't agree with you that the Mafia has "every reason" to want to out the RB here - especially if trying to do so means people like you are going to declare them scummy simply based on that. If the Mafia were smart, they would see no pressing need to identify the RB at this point in the game, UNLESS that RB actually *did* prevent a kill.
Perhaps the Mafia isn't even that smart? I don't know, but I think it's way too early to be assuming that outing an RB is automatically a scum play. Particularly when it's coming from Fayul - I've played with her enough that I have a sense of how her mind works, and she's been known to propose plans like this. I admit it's possible she is scum, but I've seen no other evidence in her posts to support such a conclusion.
You completly missed the whole point of the post you are quoting. It's wifom to say that only a townie would come out and say they were roleblocked, and also to say that someone that doesn't come out and was roleblocked is scum. There are several different reasons/justifications for why a townie player would not want to come out if they were roleblocked.
Quite a few people seem to be forgetting the possibility of a scum RB'er. Outing a townie who may or may not have a power-role for the chance to possibly almost have the chance of catching a scum based on flavor of a PM is not something I'm willing to try.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
I didn't say that it's a factor in a person's decisions. I said that, when making such a decision, it is always in the back of one's mind that a RB exists, and this affects the decisions that one makes. That is reality. For you to deny it is nothing but vanity on your part. There is no 'evidence' for you to see, because it's not something that would come up in conversation. It is simply part of the human thought process. It has less to do with mafia than human psychology, in general, applied to a mafia context. I honestly don't care if you put any faith in it, because I know that I'm right.
Yes, you're right. However, the only way to 'discern' the identity of said power roles is either A)speculation that may or may not be correct, and can't very effectively be used in the decision making process(as far as mafia actions go), or B)role-based knowledge. Obviously if the mafia have a role cop or some such role and learn something, they would want to keep that information to themselves. But that circumstance is few and far between. Under normal circumstances, the mafia will always be in favor of a power role being outed. Honestly, I fail to see why we are having this conversation. It's pretty simple. For hypothetical purposes, say that you're mafia. Your team doesn't have a role cop. Would you be in favor of the Cop coming out and saying 'I'm the Cop'? I have to say that you would, for a host of reasons, ranging from the fact that any Doctor protection in the game is now tied up to the fact that the playerbase, which you are a part of, will now try to guide the Cop's investigations, giving the mafia a chance to avoid being investigated, or act accordingly if they know one of them will be.
Fayul's plan was scummy, period. She suggested that our RB out himself AND the person that he targeted, and went further to suggest that we should lynch them both, and that if we did, even though we'd lose 2 lynches, we would 'gain alot of information'(which really isn't true) and that this would almost offset killing 2 townies. I really don't get how you can look at what she said and think that it is not scummy.
I don't really get what's so hard to grasp here. Outing the RB right now would not benefit the town in even the most remote sense. It would absolutely benefit the mafia, especially if, as according to Fayul's plan,
we lynched the claimed townie and then lynched the RB when the initial blocked person came up town.
As for the mafia not being smart, I always assume that the mafia consists of the smartest players. It doesn't really make any sense not to. Yeah, it's possible that the mafia is full of idiots, but playing according to this mentality is only going to encourage extremely sloppy play that the mafia will exploit. If you assume that the mafia is smarter than you, you will play your best game. If it turns out that, in reality, they're not smart, you'll just win more easily. You should always err on the side of caution.
You are still basing your assessment of Fayul's scumminess purely on flaws in her plan. I've checked her posts for scummy behavior; other than proposing an incompletely thought-out plan, I haven't seen anything. The plan doesn't make her scum - you seem to be thinking that townies have never proposed questionable plans.
You say you assume the Mafia consists of the smartest players; just how far does your assumption extend? Because I don't see Mafia openly trying to draw out a town power role as "smart."
You also mention "extremely sloppy play that the mafia will exploit," which is actually what I'm starting to get the feeling is going on here. My notes on you have you leaning only slightly scum, but your persistence in this is making me reevaluate.
Don't you take that tone with me young man. I am actually way ahead of you.
As I said, I always assume that the mafia is smarter than me. But that doesn't mean that they can't make mistakes, which is what I think happened here. The problem is not that her plan wasn't thought-out. If that was it, it wouldn't be a big deal. The problem is that Fayul suggested a plan, then half-explained why it is a bad idea, then later persisted that we should go through with it anyway, particularly insinuating that it would be okay to lose a town RB and another town role of whatever variety, because 'we would gain alot of information'. I think that Fayul messed up, and then when she tried to clarify her position, instead just dug herself in deeper.
Also, Fade, what are you trying to accomplish with statements like:
Are you trying to intimidate me into backing down? Do you really think that would work? If I think someone is scum, nothing is wrong with that. If you want to disagree, nothing is wrong with that either. But trying to threaten me by saying you might see me as more scummy because of it is ridiculous.
Go ahead and continue pushing this if you want. I have no problems with that. But I'm certainly not joining along, as my current read of Fayul is leaning town. And I'm advising others not to follow you either.
Well, that narrows it down.
As I said earlier, Fayul's plan would be tremendously risky for a scum, since she should have no way of knowing yet whether or not there really is a town roleblocker who blocked a scum last night. This doesn't mean she's NOT scum, she could have relied on people rejecting the plan or she could have taken a risk. Nonetheless, the plan is inherently risky (for town and scum), not inherently scummy. The scum probably have better odds from it, but it's a bit early in the game to gamble like that for either side.
I think DYH and Kenji were right, concerning what Cyan is doing and the tone of his posts. He found a townie with her neck stuck out, and he's been a bit too eager to take a swing and paper over logic gaps (e.g. Cyan said that Fayul provided real reasons against her own plan, but also argues that she intended for the town to follow the plan and hurt itself, and finds both to be scummy. I would have thought the honest recognition of actual problems in t was a point in her favour, she didn't try to claim it was all shiny happy rainbows).
Cyan's also been happy to throw some casual suspicion DYH's way, once Axelrod led off in that regard. Yay barning suspicion without adding much more than "your play seems off".
vote Cyan
As for everything with Fayul, let's examine Fayul's post that started this all:
First, Fayul claims that we have a 'good percentage play' on whomever he targeted. This is a lie. The percentage chance that the person randomly targetted by a RB on N1 is scum is very low. The percentage of chance that this person is not only mafia but submitted the mafia kill is even lower, to the tune of 1/19, in this game. Not exactly great odds for outing a RB over, let alone for lynching someone over.
Next, Fayul states that, if the person lynched is town, and the RB is scum, then we have a 'higher percentage play on him'. What is missing here is how we came to the determination that the RB is scum to begin with, when there is an equal likelihood that said RB is town. Fayul also throws in random statements that have nothing to do with anything, like 'town RBs aren't gigantically high powered'. All that this statement does is discredit any RB that might come forward, in advance, in the eyes of the town. Later in the post, Fayul briefly acknowledges the fact that this plan 'could be'(in reality, is much more likely than not to be) disastrous to the town, but states that this would be offset by the amount of information gained. Of course, that really isn't true at all, because following Fayul's plan, very little information would actually be gained, while multiple town roles would be lynched.
Note that this is included as an obvious afterthought, most likely with the intent having it to fall back on, but without really wanting anyone to take it seriously.
As an aside, statements like 'Fayul's plan would be tremendously risky for a scum' are exactly why scum can get away with making plays like these. Someone will always bring WIFOM into the fray to try and give the person too much credit. Sometimes, you just have to see something for what it is, and in this case, Fayul's play is terrible for the town, and extremely beneficial for the mafia.
If that's true, then you're the one who's playing sloppy. Axelrod mentions DYH in #48, #59, #75, #80, and #87.
As for the probability argument, I want to stay mostly away because I do believe an RB stopping the kill is not as likely as Fayul believes (and especially not as likely as a doc protect), but I want to at least point out this: while the *a priori* probability of the RB stopping the kill is 1/19, the Bayesian probability is at least higher than that, if we're assuming that there was a prevented kill last night (which seems to be the common theory). It's still not significantly high (I think), but it's not as low as it seems.
And yes, somehow, I appear to have missed alot of Axel's posts. No excuse for that on my part, but you're right that it was sloppy.
One moment. This isn't terribly relevant to my case, but I think I get where Fade is coming from when he comments on your perceptions-
Tied up on the cop? As a townie, is there any other role you'd rather have the doc protecting?
On the flip side, regardless of how good a scum player I might be, or my partners, there's nothing more scary than an active cop with doc protection. Nothing says lynch-fodder quite like "guilty". (see poor Axelrod in the case of Court Mafia.)
Not true. At its base level, it is still one townie firing into a crowd of 19 others either way. Or am I missing something?
...and my play seems "off"? You're not this sloppy.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Not to mention practically impossible. You did notice how everyone had to confirm and Hvir had to hold off starting the day due to a couple of people being extremely late confirmers?
I'm inclined to agree, but mostly because I don't believe in town RBs firing night 0. If there is a town RB and he did fire night 0, it's a fairly equal chance that he/she targeted the killer as to the doc targetting the victim. I think it tilts towards doc or nightkill immune townie just because the likelihood is two missed kills.
This isn't really a probability discussion, though. That's heading off into carrion pigeons territory and isn't especially relevant.
Sloppy or you just didn't have any better way to explain away your apparent barning.
Later on I'm going to see if I can prove you a liar on not seeing Axel's posts at all; that's just too convenient for you for me to be happy with.
I have work soon, maybe I'll post it again later.
The time for random voting is over? Fine unvote. A lot has happened in forty eight hours or so since I was last online.
I agree with WoLG. What possible reason would a roleblocked individual have to come forward? They’d be slaughtered. That’s no help to any team they’re on. Thus, playing well, they won’t do it.
Stupid Razor. No, I’m just frustrated I didn’t get there first. In all likelihood there was a tremendous convergence on someone. This brings up a number of speculative truths. It’s worth thinking about if not discussing.
On DYH: I’ve read a number of posts describing DYH play as scummy. But no one has stepped up and made anything close to a convincing case. Why? There’s just not the evidence for a convincing case. It just feels wrong. This kind of thinking is going to get us into trouble.
On Fayul: The plan post was an ambiguous attempt to start discussion during the lackadaisical springtime of the game. When it drew fire she had no choice but to clarify. Clarifying therefore does nothing to distinguish her alignment. The original post may. Was it out of place at an early stage? Did it lack merit? I’m leaning towards no. I don’t think her plan is the correct play, but I’m not sure that’s reason to try to lynch Fayul.
On Cyan: Eagerness is not scummy. Eagerness to harm the town is scummy. I find harm in an attack pushed too far, too fast, without adequate evidence, and without adequate application of ration. But not enough harm to warrant a vote. We must lynch someone today, and it is quite possible for a townie to be too zealous in their pursuit. I would know, I’ve been there. In conclusion, it’s not enough evidence to warrant a lynch.
So who would I like to see lynched? No one, yet. We have all the time in the world.
@WoD: Ditto, but I archive my posts in word.
So because I adressed the drawbacks of my plan makes me scum? Honestly, I don't get it. I don't think my plan is an end-all-be-all solution, but i think it provides a mathematical edge.
Honestly, only one person has addressed the mathematics of my plan to an even nearly rational agree. Everyone just said "well it might lynch two townies so it's obv scum." Yes, it can lynch two townies. So can -any other plan of action we follow, at all-. Any other way we play has potential for failure.
Ugh. I think Cyan is probably town. This seems like his normal town play. This analysis -digusts- me, because his logic is so specious and inflammatory, but, ultimately, this seems to be the way he plays.
I can't prove which of Axelrod's posts you read and which you didn't.
I can't prove that you read the bit in DYH's post, all of three words before he attacked you, where he mentioned Axelrod attacking him.
But given the amount of effort that has been going into your posts, and since you addressed Axelrod's posts directly, shortly after he made posts attacking DYH, you will understand aht I think you're lying.
We all thought that in Star Trek Mafia too, when Cyan won as mafia.
For me to admit to sloppy play is a big deal. I pride myself on being both active and attentive; I just didn't pay attention to Axel's posts.
As far as the likelihood of a successful Doc protection vs. a successful RB, it's not the same. The Doctor has a much more narrow pool of candidates to choose from for his N0 protection. I mean, let's face it, maybe 1/2(probably less) of the players in this game face any risk of dying N0. But anyone could be a scum committing an NK.
@DYH: My admission of sloppy play doesn't magically make your play better. You are definetely off this game. Just because I can't put alot of hard evidence to it now doesn't mean that I won't in the future. Also, to address something specific. You said:
By this logic, the Cop should just out himself at the outset of every game because then the Doc can protect him. But how often does that happen? That's right, never. Why do you think that is?
Lastly, statements like the following are why I'm having such a big problem w/ Fayul in this game:
For one thing, at least 3 people have directly addressed the mathematical fallacies in Fayul's initial post. So to say that 'only one person' has done so is simply not true. Also, Fayul is *still* trying to promote an idea that is ridiculously bad for the town. Not only that, but, promoting it against the idea that we might lynch two townies in that time anyway is absurd. For one thing, the statistical likelihood of lynching two townies if we follow Fayul's plan is very high, whereas by just playing the game normally we have at least a 1/4 chance of lynching scum, not to mention whatever information we gain along the way. Trying to circumvent the normal game process and instead lynch someone that is probably town and then a RB, a major town role, which is also probably town, is ridiculous. There is no comparison between the two.
I still hold my stance though, even now Fayul is holding her "plan" as giving the town a "mathematical edge"... which it doesn't... at all.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
@RafK:
I addressed those points of Axelrod's because DYH brought to light the fact that he felt I got on Fayul's case for something but ignored Axelrod doing the same thing(this was in this post). Like I said, it's hard for me to admit that I just didn't pay attention to what Axelrod was saying for an entire page of posts, but, that is the truth. It certainly won't happen again, though.
Cyan - 5 (Pod, WellofLostGnomes, Disrupt_Your_Hymn, serge, RafaelK)
Disrupt_Your_Hymn - 1 (diggy)
Axelrod - 1 (MD)
Kenji - 1 (Cyan)
Fayul - 2 (Sutherlands, StormBlind)
Pod - 1 (creampuffeater)
Disrupt_Your_Hymn - 1 (Axelrod)
WellOfLostGnomes - 1 (sgdre)
11 votes required to lynch. If I made a mistake, feel free to point it out, and I'll work on getting it corrected.
Member of Team Lucksack
Voting for Ron Paul in 2008
Learn how to get better at Magic
Actually, from what I understand it happened all the time in newbie games on 'Scum, which was the reason the random setup (you might have a doc, a cop, or both) was created. Our solution here on MTGS was to add a mafia roleblocker. Serves the same purpose.
Clearly, since most normal games are not open setup, the cop coming forward day one doesn't happen- the scum might have a way to neutralize the doctor, and/or the town might not have one (which I think I have yet to see).
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
I believe I am supposed to be voting DYH rith now.
This sounds very familiar...
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
Do people -think-? Okay, let's see here. Let's examine the situations mathematically.
There is a chance that the doctor hit. In which case, we're still playing the game -normally-, with no drawbacks, because if the RB claims, if he even EXISTS, there's a random chance that he randomly happened to hit a non-killing scum, the same chance that he would have by us "playing the game normally." Therefore, mathematically, the plan creates no mathematical drawback to this situation. It has the potential for failure, but so does lynching "normally." And, of course, if there is no RB, we lose absolutely nothing and continue normally.
There is also a chance that an RB hit the kill, which, mathematically, if both the RB and the doctor are in the game, is equal to the chance that the doctor hit, if both fired. In which case, we benefit. ding ding ding.
Worst case scenario is that he cast suspincion (NOT an auto-lynch, people) on a completely random player, and, if that random palyer is town, on the townie roleblocker, a weak power role. Of course, there is the chance that the claimed roleblocker is not, in fact, town.
The more I explore my plan the -better- it seems to become, mathematically. before making this analysis I never took into account the fact that the RB could have hit a random, non-killing scum even while a doc did hit the protect, which more or less negates the only drawbacks of the worst case scenario relative to regular town play.
Well, let's ignore the case if there is no RB for a second. In this part you're assuming that the doctor hit, and saying that there's no drawback to the RB claiming, because he might have hit a non-killing scum. So in this part do you lynch the person he blocked or not? Because you don't know if it was the RB or the doc.
Absolutely false. Unless, ya know, you ignore the fact that not everyone would be a N0 target, whereas anyone could be performing the mafia kill.
So here you're saying we DO lynch the person that they RB, which is why it's "ding ding ding" because we lynch a scum.
Here all of a sudden we DON'T lynch the person the RB claims they blocked. Hmm... what happened to "ding ding ding"? For another thing, I'd like to say that casting suspicion on two townies is NOT a good thing, and is in fact a BAD thing. Also, you don't even go into the scenario where the RB is scum, you just ignore it altogether.
It "looks" better to you the more you look at it because it is so full of holes and muddles logic. At one part you say "ding ding ding" because we auto-lynch a mafia, but if the person is town, all of a sudden it's NOT an auto-lynch and it's just casting suspicion.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
The probabilities are not equal.
Okay, let's make some assumptions to keep things simple. Hypothetically, let's say that the only explanations for the kill being stopped are a single town doc and a single town RB, and that the RB fired. Let's further assume (as seems to be a fair consensus) that the doc chose randomly from a pool of 5 players (we could repeat the same analysis with 6, or whatever number). And even further, let's assume there was only 1 killer, and the killer *also* chose randomly from that exact same pool of 5 players. Obviously, these are all tenuous assumptions, but let's do so for the sake of argument.
The *a priori* probability of the RB stopping the kill is 1/19. The *a priori* probability of the doc stopping the kill is 1/5. The combined *a priori* probability of one of them stopping the kill is 1 - (18/19)*(4/5) = 23/95.
Now, knowing that the kill was stopped, we calculate the *a posteriori* probabilities:
RB stopping the kill = (1/19) / (23/95) = 5/23
Doc stopping the kill = (1/5) / (23/95) = 19/23
(Note there is a 1/23 chance that both happened.)
This still tells us that the Doc protect is more likely than the RB prevention. And this will be true no matter what assumptions we make.
With these assumptions, we also come to the conclusion that there is a 5/23 chance the RB stopped the kill, which is much better than 1/19. But we don't know that it's safe to make these assumptions. The presence of other roles (such as untargetable/kill-immune roles) will lower this probability, while the presence of a second attempted kill (SK or vig) will increase this probability. The killer choosing from a different pool than the doc will also increase this probability. Meanwhile, if the RB didn't fire at all, obviously the probability becomes 0.
Finally, let's just assume the RB fired last night. If we have the RB claim his target, we would obviously place suspicion on that person. That person has a natural probability of 5-6 out of 19 of being scum, slightly better than if we chose randomly from the crowd (this assumes the RB is town). That person then has some additional probability of being scum (based on the analysis above), which means that the target is certainly more likely to be scum than a random player (exactly how much more is unknown).
Is that better than the normal route of watching people's behavior? I'm not sure.
I didn't take into consideration the fact that the doc would likely only protect from a small pool of players, which completely throws the math in my plan off. It still looks to be favorable but it's a lot closer than I thought.
@sutherlands; We -likely- lynch the people that come out of the claim, but we don't automatic speedlynch them. They might have a reasonable explanation for what happened, or, at the very least, we obviously would need more discussion before the lynch.
So, on its base level, 1 person selecting from 19 others, both odds are equal, right?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Oh, and btw Fayul, many people have already backed up their claims mathematically, it has already been said TO YOU that people have backed up their claims mathematically, AND it has been said MULTIPLE times that your logic was flawed BECAUSE the doc would choose from a smaller pool of people. Do you really have THAT selective of eyesite, or are you scum?
Which is an absolutely RETARDED assumption, IMO. But then again, the amount of second-guessing and multiple layers of WIFOM that you've done this game is enough to give anyone a headache.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
So they're still not equal probabilities even at the base. Remember that the doc and Mafia are choosing from slightly different pools, since the doc generally can't self-protect.
Let's say there are 4 Mafia, and they randomly kill from the other 16 players (which includes the doc). The doc chooses randomly from the other 19 players. Then there are 15 possible targets they could both choose. For each of those, there's a (1/16)*(1/19) chance the doc protects, which comes out to a total 15/304 (about 4.9%), which is actually less than the RB's 1/19 (5.2%). With 5 Mafia, this becomes 14/285, which is still about 4.9%.
Of course, all of this analysis assumes the doc and Mafia are choosing completely randomly, which I don't think is a good assumption to make. There is at least some tendency towards better players, which makes for some kind of uneven probability distribution.
I would say even the RB doesn't select completely randomly; I would imagine the RB is also more likely to target high-profile players because of the greater possible information, while the Mafia are more likely to assign a lower-profile player to make the kill (if possible; the distribution of roles among the Mafia may change that, but since the role assignment is random, we can assume equality without loss of generality).
This is why I don't want to rely on arguments using flat probability distributions. There's no way we can make assumptions with any guarantee of being even close to the actual probabilities.
ummmm...... I...... feel......
vote Wrath_of_dog
Now I'm starting to believe that you know that a scum got roleblocked last night.
I'm not saying you're wrong about Fayul's plan, although you're overstating the case, but the thing is- it's obvious that we're not using Fayul's plan. No-one is supporting Fayul's plan. But you're still campaigning hard against it. It seems to have you a bit too worried.
Doesn't have anything to do with this game, but- Hollywood Mafia.
The town's lack of doctor screwed the scum over, actually... I'm pretty sure we would have found the doc if they'd existed, and then killed Jobie
My math > cp's math.
And what's "bags"?
And not a one of them, Fadeblue aside, had gotten it right. Furthermore, just because you would do something as the doc on N0, doesn't mean that's the case for everyone, nor that it's a right or wrong play.
It is possible to refute arguments or give your opinion without resorting to big capital ad-homs and insults, you know. In fact, it generally results in your opinions being taken more seriously. Again, see my point about right/wrong vs. your perception.
Think about it this way, N0 with no information, I'd contend it's probably best to doc-protect a random player. If the mafia kills outside the set of "good" players, you at least had a shot to stop the kill by that way than if you'd decided to protect a specific player-type. For example, as scum, my gut would say to hit a midrange target N0. Other players might try for a big name kill. Since you don't know who's scum and who isn't, using a random method covers all the bases. Plus, it's not as if power roles are given out to just good players, they're distributed at random as well.
@RafK: Didn't pay a whole lot of attention to Hollywood once it became apparent that I wasn't going to be needed to replace. I stand corrected.
@serge: ... again, completely confused. What exactly are you doing?
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Still makes windy assumptions and isn't actually all that relevant to who's scummy or not. People by and large don't behave mathematically.
You don't have that slang? Means "claim", pretty much. "I bags the back seat of the bus!". "I bags the last ice-cream!". "I bags first try at the tall blonde one". Stuff like that.
Assumption #1: There exists 1 doc, 1 RB, and the RB fired.
Assumption #2: The doc chose randomly from a pool of 5 people
Assumption #3: The killer also chose randomly from the pool of five people
Conclusion: The chance of a successful RB are 5/23 and of doc protect is 19/23 or... approximately 4x.
False conclusion: The person the RB targetted has a 5/19 chance of being scum. Not sure where this even comes from, I assume it's just an assumption that the RB is town, which is not a valid assumption. Even if this conclusion was true, a 5/19 chance is not much better than a 5/20 chance.
Now, which one of those did I not state? Hmm??
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
creampuffeater: Don't be dumb. You're saying that it was likely a doc and not a RB, and that's what we're saying. Somehow we have the bad logic though... care to point that out?
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
Sutherlands, if you read it right, you would see that that's the *natural* probability that the target is scum. In other words, if we assume something like 5-6 total scum in this game, then any random person has that probability of being scum. The 19 discounts the RB under the assumption that the RB is town.
I think it's a decent assumption that a claimed RB would be town. It would be fairly risky for a scum to claim RB (whether he is an actual RB or not) without knowing if a town one existed. RB is usually a counterclaimable role, as it's not often that the town has more than one RB. This is especially true if the RB is verifiable by the person being blocked.
Personally, I think you're being stubborn and intentionally trying to fault the analysis before actually making sure you understand it.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)