As I’ve been re-reading and catching up…this does scare me; more than Roosh says it scares him. Today, however, is our deadline, and I don’t have a clear second candidate in mind. What I’m torn on now is, do I unvote without a clear (in my mind) second, or do I hold on to a vote of someone that, were they to survive today, I’m sure there would still be controversy and chaos because of their presence.
I need to take the time during lunch to reread, especially since the storyteller fiasco…I feel like there can be something to glean from there with regards to finding a scummy player.
I do want to make it known too, that all this noise bouncing back and forth between Blaster and sach worries me a little too. I’m worried, but only a little, that this argument is to the benefit of scum. In one of my past games, I forget who said it, but it was said that chaos is always beneficial to scum.
OK, here it is. Evey post by Freudian Slit so far toDay, with context as needed.
161 – Joke post
176 – “Well, if you’re a vampire, you have two ways of winning–if Dracula’s alive, you can win as a vamp, or if he dies, you can win as Town. I’d assume most vampires would hedge their bets and not reveal their vampireness. I’m not sure that’s a “bastard” move, so much as it is just being careful.”
208 – “I think that we’re overlooking the Dracula may have more powers than are specified angle. It just seems too easy to think that it’s much harder for him/he’s a sad SOB…there has to be something we’re not seeing, some other power. Otherwise, what’s the point of even having him?”
255 – “Honestly? I don’t think anyone has pinged my radar re: scumminess. I’m not sure how I feel about telling everyone if I get bitten, though. That may seem anti-Town, but I don’t think it’s as simple as the you’re with us or against us stuff that Roosh is pushing–a little too hard, IMHO.”
258 – In response to Hockey saying #255 pinged her: “This seems really odd to me–I just said no one seemed scummy because of the lack of information. I think your picking up on something non existent is a scum tell.”
263 – In response to storyteller asking her to explain why it’s “not as simple” (re: #255): “Well, I just think that I’d want to win as a vampire or as a townie.”
369 – “I don’t really like how OaoW is acting, re: storyteller. I’m not sure how I feel about the role claim myself because it does seem like whenever someone role claims, it’s never a boring vanilla role, but some pivotal role. But I’m going to vote One and only Wanderer”
372 – Responding to sach asking what the case is for OAOW: “It just seems like he was setting him up–the whole, “Role claim” and then when he does “Oh, you’re probably faking it anyway–but no one should counterclaim to disprove you.” It’s like, what else can the guy do to disprove it?”
375 – Again, to sach: “I’m just not seeing story as all that scummy. Okay, maybe it’ll turn out that we got…I don’t know, Dracula, on day one, and I’ll be wrong and everyone will go after me. But right now OaOW’s hypervigilance is what’s getting to me…going after the person who casts the first stone and all that.”
454 – *In response to CIAS asking how lynching Dracula is not beneficial to Town: *“I agree with this, too. I mean, the sooner he does, we’re that much closer to winning. Because if we do kill all wolves, and Dracula’s alive, then that’s all he needs to win. Sure, we could let him maybe try to bite a wolf and die, but who wants to take that chance?”
464 – After Tomba corrects her re: Drac’s win condition: “Whoops, I forgot to read the clarification of the rules.”
Crap. I realize this is a bad time for it, but there’s a significant work crisis demanding attention. I won’t be participating any more toDay. Apologies.
My initial thoughts after completing that review of Freudian:
[ul]
[li]There’s a lot of focus on Dracula in there.[/li][li]Not a lot of content - the fact that I can squeeze all of her posts, in their entirety, into such a short summary, is noteworthy. Obviously, she’s not as absent as Hal Briston, but it’s almost a textbook example of just posting enough to participate without getting too involved. [/li][li]Vote post for OAOW is vague and badwagon-y, but she does explain it better to sach shortly thereafter.[/li][li]There is a very quick turnaround from post 369 to 375 with regard to storyteller. First it’s “I’m not sure how I feel about the role claim myself,” then quickly it’s “I’m just not seeing story as all that scummy.” What happened in between there?[/li][/ul]
That’s about all the meat I could pick from those bones.
Oh boy, you’re really gonna let me whip out the math here, aren’t you?
The short answer is, yes it does, but not directly. What we’re discussing here is a dependent event; that is, the probable result depends on the result of a previous event. For independent events A and B, P(B|A) = P(B); if they’re dependent P(B|A) != P(B).
To give a quick example, an independent event is something like flipping a coin, the result of a second flip is not effected in any way by the first flip. That is, regardless of whether the first flip was heads or tails, the second flip still has a 50/50 chance of heads. A dependent event would be like determining if someone speaks a language when we know what country they’re from. For instance, let’s say we want to know if someone speaks French. We could say that the probability that he speaks French is the percentage of French speakers in the world. However, if we know he’s from the US, we can modify that to the percentage of French speakers in the US; if we know he’s from France, we can modify it to the percentage of French Speakers in France. Clearly, we would expect the probability of the latter to be much higher than the former.
We know that the truthiness of a claim is dependent because it’s value changes depending on what the actualy role of the individual making the claim is because the probability of making that claim changes based upon the role. For instance, we know that if he is the constable, then the probability that he’d claim it is 1, and if he’s pro-town and not that role, then the probability is 0. So, let’s generate a truthiness function.
Let R(i,r) be a function of whether player i hase role r. Thus, we can say P(R(i,r)) = m[sub]r[/sub]/n where m[sub]r[/sub] is the number of role r and n is the total number of players.
Let C(i,r) be a function of whether player i has made claim of role r. Thus, P(C(i,r)) = (rP(C(i,r)|R(i,r)) + (t-r)P(C(i,r)|R(i,(t-r))) + wP(C(i,r)|R(i,w)) + vP(C(i,r)|R(i,v))) / n. We know P(C(i,c)|R(i,r)) = 1 and P(C(i,r)|R(i,t)) = 0. We can also simplify P(C(i,r)|R(i,w)) to P(C(i,r) & R(i,w)) / P(R(i,w); we know P(R(i,w) [from above], but we don’t know P(C(i,r) & R(i,w)), so let’s shorthand it as X(w,r) such that it is a function that determines the probability that a wolf will claim role r. Since it’s similar for Dracula, we can rewrite it as P(C(i,r)) = (r + wX(w,r) + vX(v,r)) / n. Now, the X function isn’t something we know, but it’s something we can estimate and we know that it sums to <=1 over all known roles.
So, to get to the function that really matters, the truthiness of a claim is T(C(i,r)) = r / (r + wX(w,r) + vX(v,r)). If you have a good guess at the number of that role, the number of wolves, the number of Draculas, and the X functions for those scum, you have a good guess as the truthiness of the claim.
If I knew that, then it would change my opinon of OAOWs, but I don’t know that. What I have done instead is try to find what I believe the most consistent role distribution for the motivations at hand. I think the most consistent role distribution is when OAOWs as scum and storyteller as not being a member of the same faction. Is it possible that OAOWs is town? Absolutely, I just don’t find it likely.
Besides, your question is silly. We don’t have 100% accurate information on storyteller, nor on anyone unless we have a verifiable investigation, verifiable claim, or they’re dead. If you’re suggesting we put OAOWs asside until we have better information, fine, but I don’t see anyone of whom I’m more suspicious, so I’m not prepared to lynch someone else essentially at random when I find OAOWs notably more suspicious than random.
I’m sorry, but whether you be town or scum, this is just plain bad advice. If storyteller is a detective, his first priority is to confirm townies, if he’s telling the truth, he should continue to play the role optimally. That said, he’ll also likely eventually come across scum, and he can be checked out then.
That said, if he’s lying he’ll eventually screw up. One advantage is, as long as he’s alive and his claim is plausible, it’s highly unlikely that another wolf (if he’s a wolf) will come in and also claim Constable. The only real harm in leaving him alive if he’s lying is if he has some sort of power role (like he’s the Alchemist or Scout); however, since that’s equally probable for any wolf and we know he’ll eventually either be killed or screw up, I see no reason to hasten it.
But we will have 100% information on storyteller eventually.
So you’re willing to lynch someone whose role becomes more discernible rather than an unknown. I guess you can take that position. But I’d rather lynch an unknown and take another look at OAOW when we have more information. Storyteller is either going to die (and soon) or we are going to reach a point where we believe storyteller sufficiently, not to kill him. At that point we can make better assessments of OAOW. Can you say that about anyone else?
The choice is lynch A or B. If you wait on A, you might get information that exonerates A. If you lynch A, then that information that comes later says nothing about B. Which is the better lynch?
And you know what? I’m really pissed that only Blaster Master is the only one speaking up. That Blaster Master keeps answering for everyone else is making it very very difficult to assess other players. So Blaster Master, I say this because our conversation has fulfilled all that it could: stop answering my queries!
NINE people are voting for OAOW. I expect non-Blaster Master people to speak up.
Why vote for OAOW when information about storyteller is critical to the assessment of OAOW?
Not to mention that if he is a Werewolf, and we were determined to kill him unless he got a scum reading, his best play would be to provide a false scum reading. (The other options would be to die Tomorrow or sacrifice one of his teammates Tomorrow. A false scum reading would at least give him a chance to put off the next Wolf’s death until the Day after Tomorrow.) So you’re suggesting an ultimatum that a Werewolf would definitely meet and a Constable might fail!
Mason: It won’t necessarily be refuted, we have no idea how many there are, or even if there are any. Even if there IS a counter-claim, it’d either take two real masons to ensure a lynch (in which case a scum who was probably going to die anyway got the Masons out really early), or there’s about a chance we lynch the other one, or that there’s no claim at all. Maybe the Masons choose to play very conservatively (bad strategy, IMO, but still possible) and think it’s better not to claim on Day One? Granted, this isn’t good incentive to make this claim, but it’s still greater than zero.
Doctor: Just as safe as Detective, if not more so because he’s not expected to make results. IF it’s a false claim, the wolves kill someone else. If it’s a true claim and they don’t have a way to block him, they’ll probably kill someone else too. If a real doctor blocks them, he can just go “oh, I self-protected, they must have attacked me” or potentially seed us with bad information and say “actually, I was blocking so-and-so”. Further, look at the bolded part closely, this is a good example of potential PIS. He should be blocked and killed… perhaps because you know the scum have a blocking role? The utility of this claim is probably similar to Detective.
Vanilla: You completely didn’t mention this. Sometimes a vanilla claim just makes more sense. Maybe you made comments or actions earlier that are inconsistent with certain other better roles. Maybe they just feel like it will go over better. IOW, this is also a significant possibility.
After the example of potential PIS, I’m REALLY tempted to just vote for you.
You’re right, I just went back and checked and that was something that was in the updated role set. Either way, the point remains valid, because all it means is he had the same misconception about that role that I did, and why he’d think the scum would want to block him.
I didn’t realize that the doctor could not self protect.
But Blaster Master is wrong and a fool. While he often will state that he looks for scum motivation for actions and statements, he doesn’t actually practice it. If my dying is the only way to get him and the Town to see this, then I’m all for it.
i’m aware a guilty doesn’t confirm him absolutely, but a guilty benefits the town, because either hes a cop with a real guilty, or he’s bussing a scum mate, either way we get an effective lynch. He could even serve up Dracula and still be scum, donj’t forget the scum team potentially have an investigatoive role too. Day 1 is a really bad time to assess a cop claim because we have no investigation results to go off. Which is also why it makes such a good false claim, which is why I am inclined not to believe him.