I think it's legitimate to talk about likelihoods relative to the baseline, and say someone has a high/low probability of being scum with the implicit caveat that you mean relative to the standard baselines.
Yes, the baseline is exactly what I was talking about when I used the word "prior". It gets used enough if mafia games that I'm pretty sure even people on the "wordsy" end of the player spectrum understand what it means.
I can't remember anyone other than you using the word prior in a mafia game on this forum.
Moreover: although it would not be unreasonable for me to describe myself as a professional mathematician, I nevertheless don't know what you mean by "prior" in this context.
(Well I sort of do now, but didn't before.)
I'm much more inclined to see space's insistence on discussion of absolute probabilities scummy.
It ignores the fact that this is simply not how people usually communicate. Maybe you feel it should be, but that doesn't give you free reign to accuse others of being misleading; they are only communicating as comes most naturally to them.
In fact, I deliberately said I'm not sure whether Glooble falls into the "mathsy" camp or not:
I don't know how much of a logic person you are, but that looks like either sloppy work, or a deliberate twisting of facts.
which means I don't know if I should be expecting him to think rationally.
This is exactly my point. People can think rationally and discuss rationally and generally
be rational people without needing to present their every thought in the context of Bayesian statistics and probability. Indeed I'd say it helps the discussions to avoid couching everything in the probabilities, since the probability that someone is scum is always so small that if you just follow the probability you'll never make a decision.
The rest of this quote
If that post came from a logical player like silverspawn or faust, I would immediately smell a rat because it looks carefully-crafted to make everyone focus on the less likely stuff while dismissing almost all of the other options that don't fit hist case argument with the barest mention, even though they could be a lot more likely on the whole. Based on the fact that Glooble has now said he just wasn't thinking about probability (while making a probability-based "what's more likely" kind of an argument), I'm happy to concede that he really doesn't seem to be a Bayesian.
heavily implies that Glooble is somehow an illogical person because he didn't use Bayesian arguments. And throwing doubt onto someone's ability to analyse correctly (for not-very-good reasons) is just as scummy a thing to do as throwing doubt onto their alignment (for not-very-good reasons).
As an exercise, Haddock, if you started with a set of scenarios like Glooble posted, how would you proceed with you reasoning? I know that you went straight to picking up on exactly the point I did, which was that he was glossing over what seemed by far to be the most likely option. You went for it because of how it misrepresented Awaclus's logic, and I went for it because it underrepresented the likelihood of most players being townie to begin with, but we both obviously disagreed with the case.
You've seen how I would proceed with my reasoning. I didn't analyse the way Glooble chose to present the information because it seemed natural to me. I analysed his claim that Awaclus's vaguely irrational-looking behaviour made him less likely to be town. Which was a claim I disagreed with.
Rather than throwing shade for my attempts to articulate why Glooble's case was wrong,
By all means say Glooble's case was wrong. It's your implicit (and sometimes explicit) attempt to discredit Glooble's reasoning capacities that I am throwing shade at.
why not try scrutinising Glooble's decision to vote Awaclus over LL in the first place, given that he'd explicitly stated that he thought LL was scummy, then moved to Awa because of this case that evidently convinced him so unexpectedly, and then switched back to LL again apparently just because of the plurality lynch that's still 30+ hours out.
Hmmm. Here you have a point. i have been getting strong towny vibes from Glooble throughout and perhaps didn't give this the scrutiny it deserved. Though 30+ hours is not really all that long. I agree that gives Glooble some scumpoints but I still absolutely wouldn't have him on my lynch list for today.
Author
Topic: RMM51: Imperial Radch Mafia (Game over) (Read 309523 times)