Mafiascum.net

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:31 am**

In post 1049, Varsoon wrote:So, like, a few problems I have with this:
1. I can't read that for shit. It's not transparent to me. I misread you in that recent Newbie and I have no idea what your alignment here is.

2. What does you being 'satisfied' even entail? That's such a nebulous outcome that it seems so damn easy to hide behind as either alignment. I don't think your engagement with either D.Va or Nancy here has helped me read any of the slots involved and, if anything, I find myself glazing over those back-and-forths more than anything.

3. How do you plan on actually netting a town win with this strat? You being 'satisfied' doesn't equate to read accuracy and none of this points towards you doing anything to convince others of who scum/town is.

1. It's unlikely you'd be able to form a strong read off anything I say, given our recent experience, though, right?

2. I find something that I think may have come from scum, then I push on it to explore their thoughts behind what they said/did, and try to make an evaluation of it. I don't think any significant exchange between any two people is going to convincingly give me reason to believe they're scum in the usual case at this point.

3. I was talking about personal attacks. Being satisfied doesn't necessarily mean I'm ending the exchange without any conclusion. So far I've attempted and haven't seen anything that I can convincingly use to nail scum, but have been forming my own leans -- I think with more mechanical information we get over the days, these leans become easier to refine in retrospect, and I can start making better cases then.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:35 am**

In post 1049, Varsoon wrote:@S_S: Yes. Your projections on probability are flawed.
Yes, an INDIVIDUAL has 1/12 chance of being Arthur, and, therefore, will always have 1/12 chance of getting Excalibur when moving to claim on N1.
That said, when you take the entire data set in at once, the probability of ARTHUR getting the sword when 12 individuals exist that could be Arthur drops for every one of the 12 that doesn't go for the sword. Yes, you could argue that this is offset by the increased probability of Arthur getting the sword if he is in the pool, but that creates far too much of a risk factor of Arthur being outside of the pool.

Varsoon, Something_Smart is correct here. The risk factor of Arthur being outside the pool doesn't matter, because the probability of Arthur being in the pool multiplies with individual probabilities of getting the sword to 1/12 anyway. No matter what the pool is, as long as non-zero, there's a 1/12 chance Arthur gets it.

That said, I don't know why that question was relevant.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:46 am**

In post 1050, Auro wrote:I don't think any significant exchange between any two people is going to convincingly give me reason to believe they're scum in the usual case at this point

One reason it's hard to make any objective cases IMO is that for a lot of players, a lot of their actions can be written off to playstyle, and therefore that has to be factored in -- and often it just obfuscates their play to me. Like people have pointed out what information I'm using to inform my read WRT players like Firebringer/UT is actually their playstyle :/

That said, I'd love to hear a case on UT, since he seems to be highly hurt at this point.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:51 am**

@Auro: Yes, if we're talking about the probability of an individual being Arthur and getting the sword but since Arthur is NOT INFORMED, everyone should go for the sword because otherwise the probability becomes 0 the second Arthur doesn't go for the sword. Furthermore, if less people go for the sword, there's also a higher probability of scum killing the sword-claimer.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 2:58 am**

In post 1053, Varsoon wrote:@Auro: Yes, if we're talking about the probability of an individual being Arthur and getting the sword but since Arthur is NOT INFORMED, everyone should go for the sword because otherwise the probability becomes 0 the second Arthur doesn't go for the sword. Furthermore, if less people go for the sword, there's also a higher probability of scum killing the sword-claimer.

But who Arthur is is unknown information to anyone who isn't Merlin. At the end, (if at least one town is claiming) one person gets the sword only. "Arthur didn't go for the sword" is information that's available only once we know whether the people who went for it didn't contain Arthur in them. A probability calculation outside of this information (which isn't available for us) is still 1/12 as long as someone does claim it.
I don't think I'm the best at explaining this, tho, but I'm sure it's right.

I agree with you about the last part, this is why I said even if someone doesn't want to for some reason, they shouldn't say that -- act like they're going for the sword anyways so scum can't narrow down on lynches.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:55 am**

In post 998, Gamma Emerald wrote:In BoR, FakeGod made a comment post-game about how he meant for town to use the desperadoes optimally when doing balance. So for UT to argue against that concept is a massive scum sign.

Ah yes, remember when I did that point by point refutation of a thing from a different game that I wasn't in

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:00 am**

Varsoon, your math is wrong. You are correct that if Arthur doesn't go for the sword, then his chances of getting it are zero. But you can't stop there and say "therefore everyone should go for it". Because the probability that Arthur gets the sword-- assuming he DOES go for it-- is not constant.

Let's look at some examples. Suppose only one person goes for the sword. Well, if that person's not Arthur, then Arthur has no chance of getting the sword. But if it is Arthur, then he's guaranteed to get it-- and the odds of that one person being Arthur are 1/12. So the overall odds of Arthur getting it are 1/12.

Now, let's suppose that 6 people go for it. Once again, if Arthur is not among them, then he can't get it. This time, the odds that Arthur goes for the sword are 6/12, or 1/2. But if you compare this case to the last one, you'll see that although he's more likely to GO for it, he's less likely to get it if he does go for it. Even if he goes for it, he only has a 1/6 chance of getting it. Rules of probability say that the total probability is 1/2 * 1/6 = again 1/12.

If everyone goes for it, it gets simpler. It's just a 12-way die roll and we hope Arthur wins it. The probability of that is 1/12.

Now. To address your point, let's look at it this way: let's label the players from A to L, and let's look at the chances of Arthur getting the sword if each person is Arthur. In the first scenario, only A goes for it. The probabilities that Arthur gets the sword are:
1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
(1 if A is Arthur, 0 if B is Arthur, 0 if C is Arthur, etc.)
If A-F all go for it:
1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
If everyone goes for it:
1/12, 1/12, 1/12, 1/12, 1/12, 1/12, 1/12, 1/12, 1/12, 1/12, 1/12, 1/12

You looked at these and went "the last one has the fewest zeros, therefore it's best!" but that doesn't look at the whole picture. I looked at them and said "the AVERAGE is the same for each one, therefore it doesn't matter." Probability's about average. If you go all in on a straight flush against seven opponents, then your odds of winning are zero if any of your seven opponents are holding a royal flush... but that doesn't mean it's a worse idea than going all in on a pair against only one opponent.

In post 1053, Varsoon wrote:Furthermore, if less people go for the sword, there's also a higher probability of scum killing the sword-claimer.

This is true if people indicate whether they will go for the sword. Otherwise, there's exactly one sword claimer no matter how many people try.
But, if we assume that scum will only kill someone who wants the sword, then we can say that either someone who doesn't want it will get it, or scum will have the same good odds of killing whoever gets it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:02 am**

In post 1003, Lady Lambdadelta wrote:We have 5 days. If Elsa decides to duel anyone prematurely, denying us time, please murder them.

It doesn't deny anyone time to discuss, it just garuntees either you or me die, right? And clearly I dont like your play here. You could actually try and find someone to scumread, amirite? Not just say "kill Elsa if they duel because that's not how I want to play". Be townie if You don't want to die.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:05 am**

Something_Smart, I honestly think debating over *whether* it's 1/12 or not is not fruitful.

Where are you trying to go with that?

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:07 am**

So if the chances are 1 in 12 regardless, why would we ever go with a plan where we risk that Arthur doesn't get it solely because he didn't go for it?
Also, kill resolves before claim, so it's 1 in 11 on N1, assuming scum kill non-Merlin.
That's the other thing about talking about this like it's purely probability;
It's not.
You need to also factor in the scum kill as well as the utility that having a claimed Excalibur gets town.
It only hurts town for people to not go after Excalibur

Anyway
Regardless
I'm going after Excalibur no matter what and I'm cool with talking this over more in post-game but it feels pedantic to engage on this front any more.

Can you go more into your reads, S_S? How is this genuine Auro? What feels scum about UT? Why do you need experience to properly read 1/3 of the slots in the game?

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:09 am**

In post 1059, Varsoon wrote:Can you go more into your reads, S_S? How is this genuine Auro? What feels scum about UT? Why do you need experience to properly read 1/3 of the slots in the game?

I'm getting less confident with my townread on Something_Smart, I'm trying to find his logical conclusion to the discussion at the moment so we can get there fast and progress to other useful stuff.

I don't know what feels scummy about UT. Gamma's reason to scumread him seems weird -- I just checked, and UT did not play that game. I'm actually kinda towning UT from gut.

I probably need experience to *accurately* read a lot of slots, I'm still reading them based on their play this game alone, other players are telling me I'm wrong. *Shrug* And I probably am.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:13 am**

^ haha I was asking that to S_S
It's surprising that you both have the same baseline here
You're so malleable, Auro
It bothers me

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:15 am**

Ohhh, I thought you were asking me "How is this genuine, Auro?", misread my posts earlier this page where I asked for a case on UT, and questioned me about what I said about my reads not necessarily being accurate because of my lack of knowledge of playstyles.

What did you make of my response to you earlier?
Same baseline for? Malleable in what sense?

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:18 am**

Well, one difference is that I'm *trying* to engage when I can, and am throwing out agreements/disagreements/reads.
I think regardless of accuracy, this is important because it can help others get a feel of whether it's manufactured/genuine, and scum more often than not can come off as manufactured.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:23 am**

Auro has about 25% of the posts in this thread. How about some concision, guy.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:25 am**

Was waiting for someone to say this^

Yeah I'll shut up now for a while unless questioned.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:26 am**

He just seems interesting to talk to, huh?

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:03 am**

In post 1062, Auro wrote: What did you make of my response to you earlier?
Same baseline for? Malleable in what sense?

Which response?

Baseline as in coming to the same conclusions that S_S is.
Malleable in that you were quick to find ways that my post applied to you instead of just being like "What? No."

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:08 am**

Pagetop.

My conclusion on the 1/12 probability is because I'm sure it's mathematically correct.
His conclusions on finding an amount of town cohesion, etc resonated with me --> Right now I think it's pretty useless to talk mechanics.

Got it (Malleability)

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:09 am**

In post 1059, Varsoon wrote: It only hurts town for people to not go after Excalibur

Anyway
Regardless
I'm going after Excalibur no matter what and I'm cool with talking this over more in post-game but it feels pedantic to engage on this front any more.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:11 am**

I totally agree with that. What does that have to do with 1050?

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:14 am**

Dude, I agreed with S_S that the probability of Arthur getting it is 1/12 if at least one town goes for it.
I disagree that this implies we shouldn't have all town go for it.
I was wondering where he was going with the whole "1/12 no matter" argument, that's why *I* asked for *his* logical conclusion to it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:20 am**

In post 1065, Auro wrote:Was waiting for someone to say this^
Yeah I'll shut up now for a while unless questioned.

He says, as he posts 3 more times within an hour of saying it.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:28 am**

And I was questioned.

Elsa, if you're going to duel LLD in 6 hours, you'd get my policy vote.
Anyway, I'll now shut up *and* respond to questions after 24 hours. See y'all.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2018 5:30 am**

Policy this, policy that, it's boring if you keep playing like that. Unfortunately I'll be at work when that exact moment comes, so I'll have to reschedule it to tonight.

Unless anyone elsa is making a challenge.

Mafiascum.net

Excalibur [Endgame]