Sdmb mafia

The Game Room
1341

Yes, but my assumptions are printed clearly for all to see–that’s the advantage. Whether or not a player likes my approach, at least they can see exactly what I’m doing. And I agree we should be quibbling over the hypotheses. I used the ones I did because they seemed reasonable for this game. Do you really think the Scum lumped their votes together on Day One? Doesn’t seem very likely to me, given where all the Townie votes are.

As ok11 shows, using different assumptions give you different answers. Of course! Now we can bicker over which to use. Is any one willing to advocate a particular set of hypothesis like I did?

Or, players can ignore my methodology completely and vote by their own reasoning. Which reminds me: why haven’t more people voted?

1342

I really don’t want to get too much into this, because I think it’s a little off topic, but Shadow, the “it should have worked” isn’t a defense. The whole point is, his numbers are perfectly fair and reasonable, so while he can truthfully say that the formula should have worked, and it theoretically should, if the assumptions are incorrect, it doesn’t matter (laws of implication and all that).

Bottom line, look at his analysis as saying “here’s what I think the scum were doing” and “based on that, here’s who I think are scum”. Arguing a factor or a arithmetic mistake is silly, because obviously a scum is going to try to choose a reasonable looking factor, just like a townie is, and an arithmetic mistake is equally likely as well for any alignment. Instead, what mathematical analysis tries to do is draw a direct logical connection from theoretical motivations (eg, are they spreading votes out? Are they avoiding/piling-on someone? etc.).

However, there’s still problems with the system. There’s no confidence value in the motivational analysis. There’s no alternative scenario analysis. But at the same time, there is not a correlation between complexity and accuracy. The bottom line is, it’s a data point, and even if his mathematical system is flawless, if the premises are incorrect, it means nothing. So, for the mathematically disinclined, simply challenge the premises.

For instance, Day One’s assumption was challenged and it was disagreed that the scum necessarily spread out. IME, the scum do tend to avoid eachother when voting on Day One, but there are exceptions. For instance, in one game in which I played played scum (I don’t remember which one, sorry), I didn’t even look at who my scum buddies were entering Day One, so my analysis, voting patterns, and everything on Day One were completely indistinguishable from town. So, sure, it does happen, but more often than not, it’s a fairly even distribution. Of course, there are other factors that come into play, like if scum was threatened or not and if they’d want to try to save him, railroad him, or still spread out.

So anyway, I’m satisfied with his discussion about the numerical part. I think his hypotheses for Days One and Two are reasonable, but I would like to hear the reasoning behind his hypothesis for Day Three, because I don’t think it directly follows that the scum would somehow be less inclined to vote for Zeriel necessarily. I think if Hal is scum, they might be more inclined, and if Hal is town, they’d be equally likely to avoid either.

So, on that note, Pleonast, please explain your Day Three Hypothesis.

1343

I disagree with a Fretful lynch.

I don’t like how OaOW has been lurking pretty heavily this whole game and since he hasn’t bothered to stop by today I’m putting my vote there as pressure. Both Blaster’s and Pleo’s analysis seem to support my theory.

Vote One and Only Wanderers

1344

Fair enough on the OaOW vote. I find his lurkiness quite suspicious myself, as I pointed out earlier. However, I do take exception to comments such as the one on the Fretful lynch. Fine, you disagree with that, I don’t expect everyone to necessarily follow my logic, but can you at least give a reason as to WHY you disagree with banning her?

Granted, I haven’t come to a conclusion as to how her claim plays into it. It certainly seems fairly believable, but it really is nothing more than a Vanilla claim. I haven’t weighed up what I think the probability is of a scum making a somewhat ellaborate Vanilla claim. So, that aside for a moment, what don’t you agree with? And if that is why you don’t agree with it, what about it makes makes you disagree?

1345

A basically agree, but a couple points: I thought about doing a sensitivity analysis or some other error estimation, but the added complexity wouldn’t improve the final result enough to be worth my time. As you say, my calculation is basically a quantification of my assumptions. I don’t see the benefit of putting too much work into it when the hypotheses have unknownable truthiness.

I will also note that I make no claim to accuracy. I think you’re referring to my precision. That’s there for convenience. When comparing scores, I mentally think high/low and ignore the precise number. This’ll be less of an issue once we have several Days. Tomorrow, I expect a couple players to have 3 out 4 high values and be much better lynch candidates.

We have little concrete information about Day Three at this point. Since the voting was basically Zeriel vs nobody in particular, the simplest Scum behavior is to avoid lynching a Townie. I may certainly change my hypotheses once additional data becomes available (which is why I’m not concerned about Scum manipulating me). Do you have a suggestion for an alternative?

1346

I don’t think I ever said I thought HAL to be town/scum. I didn’t like the Jsexton-lynch and I didn’t like the Zeriel-lynch. I don’t really know about HAL
but I just felt like Town was making the same mistake over and over again.
No - I havn’t seen much of it toDay thanks to the numbers provided by Pleo and others.
No need to say I don’t really like the conclusion Pleo made based on the numbers… but at least Town is talking about something substantial!

I’m off to bed - but I need to vote first. I’m sorry if I keep repeating myself - but Hero just really seems scummy to me. So for now I’ll (yet again) go:

VOTE HERO

IRL suff might prevent me from being around the next 24 hours or so - but hey… it’ll just be work for 7 of the 24 hours - so I might get to make a more decent post before sun sets.

1347

And before I forget…

Is there any chance that SANTO could only make the Day last longer if he “gave his life” and died at Night?

I havn’t see that kind of role before - so do any of the more experienced players think that could have happened?

1348

Unofficial vote count…

Fretful Porpentine : 2 (BlaM , Zsofia)
OAOW : 1 (Ok11, Hero)
Total Lost : 1 (Pleo)
Hero : 1 (Total)
No Vote : 7 (Squid, Porpentine, Hal, Kat, OaOW, Rapier, Shadow)
In the Hole : 1 (amrussell)

Come on people, we’re never going to do well if there’s little discussion and littler voting.

1349

I promise I’ll vote before the deadline. I went back to look at Hal’s posts, thinking that I might vote for him again, but I have to say nothing in the posts themselves leapt out at me as sufficient evidence for a vote. And it’s entirely possible that he could be town and everything I thought I was seeing was pure coincidence.

Will take a look at OAOW, Total Lost, and Hero next.

1350

I don’t think you got your numbers right lol

1351

A forty-eight hour Vote Count.Fretful Porpentine : 2 (Blaster Master, Zsofia)
One and Only Wanderers : 2 (ok11, Hero from Sector 7G)
Total Lost : 1 (Pleonast)
Hero from Sector 7G : 1 (Total Lost)

1352

All right, so after a quick review, Hero just strikes me as a typical newbie. Could be a scummy newbie, but as of now, I don’t see any particular reason to think so.

The problem I have with voting either Total Lost or One and Only Wanderers, ironically enough, is that their voting records look a bit too scummy. In other words, if I were scum, I would do my level best not to place my vote on a minor candidate three days running, because I would know that’s precisely the sort of thing that will look funny later in the game, whereas it’s quite conceivable that a townie wouldn’t care.

1353

This just doesn’t seem to be a likely scenario. Why would Santo give his life up so that the town could get an extra 12 hours? Even if he’d made the decision 12 hours before the end (which he didn’t, because he announced his extension during the initial 12 hour period), he didn’t then make some grand attempt at changing things during those final 12 hours.

1354

Okay, I’ve finished re-reading up to page 6, and have a question about the following exchange from Day One:

Post 200

Post 209

Post 233

Both Hero and Rapier posted several more times between ok’s post 233 quoted above and the bottom of page 6, but Hero never responded to the comment that I noticed. Hero did make a general comment objecting to being accused of “putting words into people’s mouths” in post 245, right after his explanation of his misinterpretation of Hal’s “quite right” post and seemed to be specifically addressing that particular issue. I don’t see how Rapier’s post 200 could be misinterpreted to be referring to scum-benefits in any way, shape or form.

Also, Rapier didn’t make any objection to the blatant misinterpretation.

I’d like to know:

Hero, why didn’t you make any attempt to explain the Rapier misinterpretation?

Rapier, any reason you didn’t follow up on Hero putting words into your mouth?

1355

Okay, the second question is withdrawn, as I came across Rapier’s response on page 7 (I didn’t go far enough before decided to post).

It was post 334:

And was in response to ok’s followup on the issue (post 332).

Although I still haven’t seen where Hero got “a legitimate concern, at this point role discussion could benefit scum more than town” out of “I’m not sure any of this is useful, at this point, except to see who’s talking, and maybe establish data points for later evaluation.” So, first question still stands.

1356

All right, doing searches of individual players’ posts is giving me more headaches than enlightenment, as usual. So, new method. We all know that the one thing scum always try to do, especially in the early Days, is to distance themselves from each other, whether via the Quiet Scum-on-Scum Vote or the Public Feud.

So, here are a few dyads (and one triad) of people who might be worth a further look (based mostly on voting patterns, as I’m too exhausted to reread the whole thread):

Zsofia and Kat: Zsofia casts an early vote on Kat on Day 1, repeats it on Day 2 but later unvotes. Kat does not reciprocate her suspicion, voting instead for Zeriel every day. This is a plausible scum-on-scum vote (one of very few possibilities from Day 1); both players have been largely under most people’s radar. Both cast subsequent votes on popular candidates, but never for the same candidate.

Hero and One and Only Wanderers or Total Lost: This is the only other possibility for scum voting scum on Day 1. I have explained in my previous post why I’m not totally sold on either OAOW or Lost as scum, but I don’t want to discount the possibility either. OAOW and Lost subsequently vote for (different) unpopular candidates, Hero for relatively popular ones.

Hal Briston and ShadowFacts: Participants in a very heated exchange. ShadowFacts votes for Hal on Day 2, and Hal returns the favor on Day 3. This feels like it could very easily be a staged feud; but if they are both scum, they’re playing a risky game that could well have led to the lynch of one or the other.

One and Only Wanderers and ok11: These two have been voting for each other like crazy, although nobody else has been paying much attention to either of them as candidates until toDay. Again, this looks like it may be a calculated public feud.

Incidentally, none of these dyads / triads of players have ever ended a Day with their votes on the same person, although I don’t think there’s anything conclusive about this at this point in the game.

1357

I’ll go back and find the posts that discussed the Hal v. Zeriel thing today (mostly fear of the “now we lynch Hal” t hing, which is probably keeping people from talking about him at all, which is a bad thing) later, but I’m iPhoning this and I just wanted to say I buy Fretful’s claim so I

unvote Fretful
vote OAOW

1358

@Kat>
I posted my apology thirty minutes after Rapier clarified his position.

You are 100% completely correct that I read the tone of his original post and thought he was saying something different than he was.

Here is how I read his comment in my mind “I’m not sure any of this is useful (to town), at this point.” It doesn’t seem like a huge leap of logic to assume that role discussion would be useful to scum. Still, upon clarification I immediately made it clear that I had misread his position. What more do you want?

With hindsight supporting me I still don’t get why I was vilified for being cautious about role discussion. Scum and PFKs have torn through our power roles and it is our own damn fault.

1359

Hero, can you link or quote the post for me, please?

1360

OK, as I said before, I’m inclined to believe **Fretful **at this point, and no one else has jumped out at me as scummy toDay, so I’m going to go back to yesterDay and make my case against who I felt was behaving extremely scummy. Big surprise, it’s Hero. I fully admit that I got quite frustrated with **Hero **yesterDay and this review may be somewhat biased as a result. However, I will be linking and quoting the posts in question, so please judge for yourself.

It at begins in post where I explain why I was voting for Hal.

In post 1069Hero immediately tries to divert the conversation, and distorts the record for the first time by saying “You and amrussel have all come forth this morning saying you didn’t like the JSexton bandwagon but you weren’t vocal about it yesterday. Why not?” I respond and refute him in post 1072, showing that I was vocal about it.

**Hero **changes tactics in post 1074, claiming that “The closest Hal got to being vote leader was two away. You’re also completing ignoring Zeriel who was actually MATCHED with JSexton (6 to 6) for a while.” The first point I think is probably just a misunderstanding, although I didn’t take it as such at the time, as we will see later. The second point is the hammer that **Hero **is going to try to nail me with for the rest of the Day. (As a side note, Total Lost effectively criticizes **Hero **about this later in post 1102).

I respond in 1075, and explain that I haven’t reviewed the vote record including **Zeriel **yet, but I would.

**Hero **responds in 1077, dropping his first FOS on me, for the “ignoring Zeriel” reason.

I post a record of the previous Day’s voting, including Zeriel, in 1078.

In 1079, I press **Hero **about his previous misrepresentation about me not being vocal on JSexton. **Hero **responds to that in 1089, lamely (IMO) saying that I didn’t defend JSexton, I only attacked Hal Briston. I show that he is either wrong or lying about this in post 1103.

Then I get a head cold, and my posting is reduced

In 1160, **Hero **votes for me, again saying that I ignored **Zeriel **(hammer, hammer).

I respond in 1163with a complete explanation of the **Zeriel **issue, as well as my first attempt at showing how **Hero **is misrepresenting me. This includes me saying that **Hero **is wrong when he says that **Hal **was 2 votes away from being vote leader. I show that he is ‘wrong’ by saying: “Hero is not the only one who has said this, but it is also simply not true. When Zeriel voted for Hal, it was JSexton 4, Zeriel 3, Hal 3. I’ve posted this multiple times.”

Hero replies with 1166, saying “Uh… if someone is at 4 votes, and the other person at 3, it takes TWO votes to put them into lynch leader.” I think the misunderstanding is that I look at the votes and see **Hal **as 1 vote away from a tie for the lead. **Hero **sees that **as Hal **needing to go ahead of **JSexton **in order to take the lead, as the tie would go to JSexton. **Kat **then explains to him in 1167that this is not quite accurate. Nevertheless, I now think this is just a different way of looking at the numbers.

Not much else happens between us for a while, when in the midst of an exchange between **Zeriel **and me, **Hero **jumps in with this post (1234) accusing me of “swearing at” people who are voting for me. While I was certainly well on the way to my frustration explosion at this point, this is still disingenuous. At this point, I have 3 votes on me: Hero, **Hal **and Rapier42. **Hero **says that my calling his vote for me “total crap” is swear #1. What can I say about that except that it’s total crap? :smiley: I did not swear at either **Hal **or **Rapier **(in fact, I went out of my way to say that I enjoy playing with Hal) after he voted for me. The second “swear” was me saying “unfuckingbelievable” in response to a post about me by Zeriel. While certainly a swear, it wasn’t directed at Zeriel. I didn’t call him a fucking tool or any other names. I just thought his post was really unbelievable. (It was.) This while thing was a smudge and a smear.

OK, that’s it. I’m sure most of you won’t bother to read through this monstrosity, but if you do, I think you’ll see what I see: someone who is trying to distract and distort. And that’s scummy.

Vote Hero from Sector 7G