Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gkrieg13]

That post that you're referring to is because I wasn't going to be around for the deadline but people said to just check in to confirm any mason claims. So that's what I was doing.

PPE

[yuma]

That post that you're referring to is because I wasn't going to be around for the deadline but people said to just check in to confirm any mason claims. So that's what I was doing.

PPE

Hmmm that actually makes sense then...

[Jimmmmm]

Well, assuming today we lynch a VT, I'm eliminating Jimmm from my lynch pool.

Why?

[chairs]

Well, assuming today we lynch a VT, I'm eliminating Jimmm from my lynch pool.

Why?

Gut.

[Jimmmmm]

For whatever you think it's worth, DBMMMT occurs in 0.03% of games, while DBTTTT occurs in 0.9375% of games, which is 31.25 times more likely.

[Jimmmmm]

For whatever you think it's worth, DBMMMT occurs in 0.03% of games, while DBTTTT occurs in 0.9375% of games, which is 31.25 times more likely.

Another way of putting it is now we know there's a Doctor and a Roleblocker, there's a 1/16 chance that there are no more roles, and a 1/500 chance that there are Masons.

[Awaclus]

For whatever you think it's worth, DBMMMT occurs in 0.03% of games, while DBTTTT occurs in 0.9375% of games, which is 31.25 times more likely.

Another way of putting it is now we know there's a Doctor and a Roleblocker, there's a 1/16 chance that there are no more roles, and a 1/500 chance that there are Masons.

Is this right? I'm too tired to do the math myself at the moment, but if that is right, I think we have to lynch a mason today after all. Almost regardless of how believable the mason narrative is, it seems silly to not count on the 499/500 chance.

[Jimmmmm]

For whatever you think it's worth, DBMMMT occurs in 0.03% of games, while DBTTTT occurs in 0.9375% of games, which is 31.25 times more likely.

Another way of putting it is now we know there's a Doctor and a Roleblocker, there's a 1/16 chance that there are no more roles, and a 1/500 chance that there are Masons.

Is this right? I'm too tired to do the math myself at the moment, but if that is right, I think we have to lynch a mason today after all. Almost regardless of how believable the mason narrative is, it seems silly to not count on the 499/500 chance.

Well we know that one of them is true, so maybe you'd say it's more like 3%/97%. And of course we shouldn't base our lynch on assuming that we have a more likely setup, it's just something to take into account.

[Awaclus]

Well we know that one of them is true, so maybe you'd say it's more like 3%/97%. And of course we shouldn't base our lynch on assuming that we have a more likely setup, it's just something to take into account.

Oh. Well, 3% is a lot more than 1/500. Had it been 1/500, I think that basing the lynch on it would have been pretty good. Now, it sounds like something that would probably actually happen every now and then, so basing the lynch on it isn't super good.

[Awaclus]

I need to think about this in more detail tomorrow, though.

[yuma]

Well we know that one of them is true, so maybe you'd say it's more like 3%/97%. And of course we shouldn't base our lynch on assuming that we have a more likely setup, it's just something to take into account.

I think what we mostly need to take into account is whether or not gkrieg/ash and unknown partner would take the risk knowing such percentages. That is really the question that needs to be asked more than anything else.

But it also needs to be kept in mind that in mafia's eyes at the time they were considering claiming there was only a 50% chance that this would be the fake scenario that would need to be created DBMMMT. The other 50% chance was DMMMTT, which occurs a little bit more often...

Because if fakeclaiming (with what we know of the setup, DBTTTT) mafia knew 1-shot Strongman, Roleblocker so knew there would either be TTTT or TTT so 4Ts to fake claim with or 3Ts to fake claim with.

Wait, I am getting this wrong then. The other 50% chance would be DBXMMM (not what I have above) which would be super, super risky as it is even more rare than what Jimmmmm was describing above.

So gkrieg/ash and buddy would have had to know they would be putting us in a super unlikely scenario or a super, super, super unlikely scenario statistically. Which I don't think they would do.

Either that or they didn't fully weight the statistical risk when making their decision...

[ashersky]

Occam's razor, people.  This is all interesting talk, but basically you are all just pointing out how great my design is.

If you want to argue the likelihood of a setup being rolled as a reason to say we are lying (hint: that's a fallacy), you can flip it and argue that why would scum intentionally lie about something so statistically unlikely?

[Jimmmmm]

Occam's razor, people.  This is all interesting talk, but basically you are all just pointing out how great my design is.

If you want to argue the likelihood of a setup being rolled as a reason to say we are lying (hint: that's a fallacy), you can flip it and argue that why would scum intentionally lie about something so statistically unlikely?

If you were in a Mason pair, you'd have no issue at all with there being another Mason pair, despite the fact that the chances of rolling MMMMMM is literally one in a million?

[ashersky]

Occam's razor, people.  This is all interesting talk, but basically you are all just pointing out how great my design is.

If you want to argue the likelihood of a setup being rolled as a reason to say we are lying (hint: that's a fallacy), you can flip it and argue that why would scum intentionally lie about something so statistically unlikely?

If you were in a Mason pair, you'd have no issue at all with there being another Mason pair, despite the fact that the chances of rolling MMMMMM is literally one in a million?

Considering we've had a doc and rb flip?  Yes, I'd have issue with that.

Are you claiming mason now?

Belligerent and Mean Jimmmmm is generally town!Jimmmmm at least.

[yuma]

Occam's razor, people.  This is all interesting talk, but basically you are all just pointing out how great my design is.

If you want to argue the likelihood of a setup being rolled as a reason to say we are lying (hint: that's a fallacy), you can flip it and argue that why would scum intentionally lie about something so statistically unlikely?

and then you can flip it and argue that scum would know that town wouldn't think they would intentionally lie about something so statistically unlikely.

Except! That is when you start getting into the arguments I was bringing up about WW and TA earlier, about the risk/rewards that mafia have to go through when analyzing making such a decision. Relying on town to make a counter argument of "they would never do that, its too crazy" is a risk that scum, I think more often that not, doesn't take.

Keeping this argument in mind is a little bit difficult when I am the one bringing up the counter side, but I think it is important to still do so.

So I guess I am at the point only mildly considering viewing the masons as potentially fake claiming.

I still want to lynch away from them within the VT pool and then after we correctly hit scum mafia will be forced to make a choice regardless of where the mason claim stands. From there we can go forward, depending on what happens. I think keeping in mind whether or not a person could viably be partners with the mason is going to be a small, but certainly not the most important part, of deciding who to lynch today.

[chairs]

I know where my vote will be, but I don't want to throw out a vote until we're all agreed it's time to do that.

[yuma]

I know where my vote will be, but I don't want to throw out a vote until we're all agreed it's time to do that.

and I know where mine will be (awaclus). Do you want to share where yours will be as well?

[chairs]

UoS.

[yuma]

UoS.

well poop. although probably not a bad choice... if the masons are telling the truth there is a good chance both UoS and Awaclus are both mafia. I just happen to think that Awaclus is a far superior choice.

[Awaclus]

Now that it's tomorrow and I've thought about this in more detail, I still like lynching from the VTs. It's not unreasonably unlikely that we would have the masons, it would suck if we lynch them and they're town, and if they're scum, we need to find the third scum anyway so might as well do it now, it's super good if scum NKs one of the masons and it's also super good if they NK someone else, and I kind of don't like how easy it is for scum to push the case against the masons at this point since you can base the majority of the case around theory talk instead of having to fabricate reads on someone you know is town.

UoS is a good choice because he makes sense as scum partners with the masons and he's also not the towniest VT around.

[yuma]

UoS is a good choice because he makes sense as scum partners with the masons and he's also not the towniest VT around.

You don't like me anymore?

[Awaclus]

UoS is a good choice because he makes sense as scum partners with the masons and he's also not the towniest VT around.

You don't like me anymore?

Well, I re-read the game earlier today and I might actually be inclined to believe that if the masons are town, you are the other VT. I also find it unlikely that you're the masons' partner even if you're scum, so lynching someone who could be your partner or the masons' partner is better.

[chairs]

well... moment of truth time, I think.

vote: UoS.

[yuma]

well... moment of truth time, I think.

vote: UoS.

I don't think.

UoS hasn't even been online today. ash and gkrieg have barely spoken... I request that you remove your vote. We like 5+ days.

[gkrieg13]

That seems like strange timing to cast a vote.  We have a lot of time, and we need to get this right.  I have taken yuma off my list for today.  So that leaves 3/4 of the rest being scum.  I feel like chairs and UoS are my top scum reads right now.  Between Awaclus and jimmmmm I have no idea.