Cue, unless those are really polite, well organized debaters.
Just a point of clarification. Any set of 5 players is likely to contain at least one scum.
Warning: Math
[spoiler]Let us first assume that the game contains 5 scum. The number could be 4 or 6, but is unlikely to deviate significantly far from 5.
For this analysis I will also ignore any possible third parties.
Then the probability that any random set of five players contains at least one scum is:
1 - P(set of five contains all Town) = 1 - (16/21)(15/20)(14/19)(13/18)(12/17)
which equals 1-0.21 = 0.79
[/spoiler]
In other words, any random set of 5 players has about an 80% chance of containing at least one scum.
Meeko, are you saying that due to the circumstances of the peeker situation you feel that the probability of there being at least one scum amongst the players involved is above 80%? Do you feel this has a level of significance above any other random set of five?
Personally, I don’t. I agree that one of those five is likely to be scum, but I also think that any set of five is likely to contain at least one scum.
Brunch time. More later… or tomorrow.
the queue debate
that should have said “Cue the queue debate”
IN any case, I don’t want to get into a Jester or Bomb debate. I don’t care about those roles and think we need to lynch them anyway if we’re so inclined.
Funny you should mention that Ed.
Do I agree with Peeker? Some time back in this game I did take up the cause of defending his play style. I spoke of golden geese and tried to force a fit of my play history to Peeker. I begin to question that now. I think we can agree that my post there was more in general, and not exclusive to Cecil Pond. Total 100% agreement was not to be found.
I can not begin to fully understand what Peeker does. Yes, I am often lumped in with him when it comes to the WTF style of Mafia. That doesn’t mean I understand him all of the time.
I make Big Macs, Peeker serves up Whoppers.
Do I understand Peeker? I thought I did. On some level. In one game, Peeker was the fellow commuter I met on the bus. As my stop, on the way home was before his, I often wondered where he got off. We both worked at the same office complex, however.
In this game, I compared my play to that of making a Big Mac, and I mentioned that at the same time, Peeker served up Whoppers. [The word choice of “serves up whoppers” was deliberate.]
If I am honest with myself, I remind myself that I was lumped with Peeker long before I started playing Mafia. At that time, for a desperate need of better words, I did kinda hold the guy on a pedestal, or even higher. Could there be other people who play like me, and thus “understand” where I am coming from? I need to meet this Peeker guy, he seems kinda cool.
And honestly, my first reaction when I found a completed game he had been in, was less that I had hoped for.
This guy makes up names for people, and makes references to things at the drop of a hat. Not only are his thoughts his own, but you almost need a Peeker to English dictionary!!
At the time I was introduced to Peeker, and for 6 games since then [This is my seventh] I kinda thought we would be always linked together. Indeed talk of “double E” names had begun, and names like Seeker of Truth and Beauty were thrown in. One case was made that ROo… toejam could in theory be thrown in, because of double O. I even referenced Double E in Colorless.
No. I do not understand Peeker. I was kicked into his camp [for want of better words] and I was kinda kept there, a type of Mafia purgatory. I seriously wonder, if Peeker had not gone before me, if I would still be accepted here.
We are not two peas of the same Pod. We are not cut of the same cloth. I thought we were. I thought a lot of things before this game. Most recently actions in the game have changed, to the point that I seriously have to look at things.
I like Peeker a lot. That is why what I do next is difficult.
I point out that I touched on my Peeker plus 4 = >= 1 scum twice.
I wish I had that Peeker Dictionary about now. I think he is talking about, Roulette?!, can anyone confirm?
Thanks’s Ed. Thank’s Peeker for your confirmation. This helps a lot.
…Wait a second. That’s MY argument with a new coat of paint on it!!!
It is one thing to fish [excuse the pun] for information. It is another thing when Meek… I mean, when I hand you the fish and teach you how to cook it too.
I think that I just handed a Scum Peeker a big box of ammo he can use to defend himself against being Scum. He has run out of information. If he uses my logic, I will have to agree with it! He was probably along the lines of “Oh, and it’s Meeko that is making this claim? I guess that is one vote for sure I won’t have to worry about…”
**
There comes a time when I need to stop drinking the communion wine in the church of Peeker.**
**Unvote Fluiddruid
**
**Vote Peeker. **
Did someone ask if I would ever do this? I just did.
Peeker, frankly, and with all due respect, I like you, but I think I am about to lap you in terms of expressing my views with other players. If only I can look at your play and history anew from where I sit today.
So what happens if someone is a jester or a bomb, or whatever? WIki says with a jester sometimes scum has the opportunity to kill two ppl that night if we kill the jester.
Bomb role seems to be the same thing but nighttime?
Again, I apologize, but i’m just really unfamiliar.
If you think we should kill even if someone IS a jester or whatever, then I’m for killing peeker. JEster or not, he’s playing pretty anti town even for him.
Bonus points to whoever can count the number of metaphors in Meeko’s post
My posts have gotten longer as late. I revise as I go.
One earlier draft of my post above, Fruedian, pondered if Peeker was a Jester as well.
Snipped.
I would put my odds above 80%.
I’m not sure how far above that I would go. I think a wagon did form on Peeker’s early votes. I think a Wagon needs new math. [[Chronos, do you still have your ““program””?]]
I don’t see the need for distinction here. Peeker’s vote THEN seemed to me to be a bandwagon. I would rather look at a wagon entire, than a natural random sample. As you point out, I have good odds on one scum already. Why make more work here? Why ignore an intact wagon?
Assorted snipping of Mine and Cookies above.
Cookies, you frankly seem eager to agree with me. I set out a group of five people that you are not in. You hold it up for all to see, and add your comments. Later, you comment on why we are all voting on Peeker.
Do you want town cred by looking at a bandwagon, knowing that some fellow scum are in on it ?
Is this because you are scum with Peeker, and you want town cred by hyping the “vote of the Summer” OR is it because you are scum with him, and you are trying to redirect the votes from him, and off of him ?
Cookies, you ping me here.
I have a request, that I cannot compel anyone to follow, but nonetheless:
If you are currently voting for peeker, would you be willing to summarize your reasons specifically in three or four sentences? Not just, he’s playing anti-Town or whatever, but “he has done X, Y, and Z, and those things are Scummy.”
:smack:
NETA :
One earlier draft of my post above, Fruedian, I pondered if Peeker was a Jester as well.
Storyteller, do you want me to do this?
[[My posts seem to average 45 minutes to an hour in creation for this game. God help the both of us if you do.]]
Here is my summary of what’s occurred. I’ve included things that are not worthy of a vote only to put everything into context. The bolded statements are my reasons for voting
- Peeker put out a vote on storyteller.
- Peeker got defensive and aggressive when he took heat for the random vote.
3. Peeker singled out Zeriel and voted for him, claiming Zeriel should know better, while claiming that those voting for him were either lazy or Scum. - Peeker asked Zeriel to prove that he said he was going to vote for a strong player (in an aggressive and vulgar fashion)
- Zeriel provided the quote where peeker implied he was going to do that.
6. Peeker changed his story, claiming that his vote wasn’t random, but was, in fact, some sort of Scum trap.
7. During all this time, peeker is playing the “this is how it’s been going for me, when I flip Town, you’ll see” card. (Many posts contain a variation on this, and it seems overkill on an emotional appeal to me.) - Peeker backpedals, claiming that he was ‘stirring the pot’ but maybe he has only caught Town on Town
- Peeker tries to divert attention to those not participating in this ‘debacle’ saying there are Scum in that group. (Since that group contains most of the players, this seems quite obvious)
10. Peeker reverses his backpedal and says he thinks he’s magically found 1 or 2 Scum in his ‘trap’ (all the while not really explaining how people calling him out on poor play is a Scum trap. To me, it even seems the opposite, Scum could be quite content to either jump on peeker or to let the Town do it. Calling someone out on poor play isn’t really a Scum tell in my book.)
Without going back to do a thorough re-read or quote, I think this summarizes my vote on him.
ed. what’s kind of comical is that you will so look like an ass when i flip town.
neta: and no jester or bomber. just niller. you folks are adorable, seriously.
btw. ed is lying. when i flip town please lynch him.
(Just got caught up. More is pending, but I just saw this and wanted to repond)
peeker, this kind of post really isn’t helpful. If ed is lying, explain how he is lying, please. I really don’t have the energy to pick through your posts again and compare them to what ed said you did.
But a town or a scum one? I have no idea - how do you tell the difference? What specifically is he lying about?
The difference is see with the others who voted for you is that he patiently responded you and got you to knot yourself up your answers.
If you do flip vanilla, peeker, it’s not going to affect how I see special ed, incidentally, because he’s made the point that many people have made.