Mafiascum.net

This is a rare instance where someone blatantly admits they're counter-wagoning.

Yeah.

I'm not sure what to make of that, either.

In post 1074, Quick wrote:Also, Midway didn't react at all to my vote on them or they went to sleep or something. It wasn't really doing anything.

You waited, like, what? An hour?

In post 1076, Blair wrote:

In post 1074, Quick wrote:Also, Midway didn't react at all to my vote on them or they went to sleep or something. It wasn't really doing anything.

You waited, like, what? An hour?

I am very low in conscientiousness. Which means I have poor self discipline.

Happy birthday, by the way.

In post 1078, Blair wrote:Happy birthday, by the way.

Why should I expect that when I don't say happy B-day to other people because it's a useless holiday? Still, I appreciate the thought.

Lol, but happy birthday regardless

Starting from my post 865. I'm largely caught up now (roughly page 42 or so), and need to jet off to work. Here is where my head is at after a detailed reread of Day 2.

@gamma - if you think r2r had bad reasons for jumping on the NPOM wagon, what is your assessment of Dunn?

Blair's attempt at math for her Gamma vote doesn't even add up. She says it is possible 1 out of 4 people off the wagon is likely scum -- giving us a 25% chance from that pool. HOWEVER, if you were to assume it was a three scum game (which is fairly standard for this size setup unless meta around her has changed), that would mean you could have up to a 2 out of 7 chance of hitting scum on the wagon --- or roughly 28%. Any way you slice this, it doesn't feel statistically significant to me unless you assume only two scum in the game.

So either Blair is trying to make her vote seem more credible here than it really is, or she knows something we don't about how many scum are in the game. Either way, I don't like it.

--as I'm reading, I'm not liking Blair's dismissive tone to legitimate questions coming from me and others. For example, I asked her to inform me how confident she was yesterday on NPOM, and she said "you should have asked me that yesterday" and then answers. It's a way of salting the earth, imo. Like by saying the question is so stupid, it psychologically makes the answer irrelevant, or forces me to reply to the bad retort of 'why didn't you ask me yday'. hmm

--midway's entrance into the game is...underwhelming

Blair wrote:Gamma + Puppy/Midway + Mavs/Atarashi/Quick

I don't see how one of r2r or votato are not on this list. Mavs and Quick have both also been very pro-town as far as I can tell. Gamma and Puppy as well to a lesser extent. You're telling me there is not one single obvious scum in this game? I'm very confused.

Quick to Blair wrote:Saying Gamma is Scum for being right not being on the NPOM lynch is bad.

I agree with this. It's bad logic at best.

votato wrote:i propose that a good test of this would be lynching r2r. if r2r flips town then you have a case on gamma.

Also agree with this. WAS I WRONG ABOUT VOTATO????

midway wrote:For some reason, I had a scum read on VPB, but it seems like you guys think that is unrealistic

I'm game. Please go on record and elaborate why.

midway wrote:It is based on tone.

Oh, got it.

In post 964, Blair wrote:An excerpt from scum daychat in Quick's universe:

R2R

- This is great! Quick and Blair are drowning the thread in a fruitless debate!

VP

- Yeah, now would be a great time for me to bus you!

R2R

- Sure, we can put some distance between us! Just make sure you don't push it too hard, we don't want to steal the spotlight.

VP

- I was thinking I'd pound out some wallposts calling you a blatant liar and detailing all the scummy things you've done.

R2R

- Huh... yeah, I guess, if you think it's really necessary to put as much distance between us as possible. Just make sure you don't overshadow the Blair/Quick fight.

VP

- I was actually thinking I'd try my best to shut that whole fight down, actually, and push everybody to focus extra hard on how scummy you are.

R2R

- Okayyyy... but only for a little while, right? I mean, only NPOM is voting for me now so I should be pretty safe from a strong push as long as it's short-lived.

VP

- I figured I'd just keep pushing this non-stop until you're lynched! If you aren't lynched today I'll keep pushing it tomorrow, too!

R2R

- ... I hate you.

ok, actually lol'ed

blair talking about extended fights with Quick wrote:Most people just whined about it and skipped most of our posts, and I still haven't made up my mind for sure on what that might mean. It was... off, somehow.

I'd actually appreciate if we dial this back a little bit. It's relatively distracting and almost certainly has contributed to the number of replacements. I say this selfishly as someone with a busy job and limited time to catch up when there are reams of pages to dissect. (I know that's whiny, sorry)

midway wrote:for some reason, I am townreading r2r
I also had the impression that Quick v Blair might have been theatre, so I appreciate Dunnstral mentioning it.

All your posts are terrible. Do better.

Blair wrote:I wanted to flip NPOM because he was either scum or town who isn't scumhunting - but mostly I wanted to flip NPOM to sort Quick.

Wait...you said the first part when I asked you about your confidence in the NPOM vote, and then added the Quick read part to this answer. Why didn't you say that in response to my original question?


VOTE: Blair

Also scum:
r2r

Maybe scum?
midway
Dunn
votato (though I'm doubting myself hard on that now)

People who need to talk more:
Puppy
Atarashi replacement
midway for sure

Everyone else is at varying levels of town or null for me.

In post 1027, Blair wrote:1. Day 1 Blair was scumreading Quick

2. Blair observed Quick has an enormous ego and claims to follow a brilliant "scumhunting system" to the letter, regardless of alignment, that "definitely works"

3. Blair decided that Quick actually believed this.

4. Blair inferred that scum!Quick believed town!Quick would nail scum.

5. Blair concluded that if Quick is town, NPOM is a decent enough Day 1 lynch who might flip scum and was definitely anti-town, but if Quick was scum he was probably bussing because

brilliantly catching scum with great confidence

is what scum!Quick believed town!Quick would be doing.

6. Blair doesn't look a gift horse in the mouth and knows a win/win when she sees one, so she helps push the NPOM wagon.

This really does not make sense to me, particularly step 4. So you are saying he has a big ego, and therefore he would have to bus on day 1 if he was scum? If his ego was so big, wouldn't scum Quick think he could dupe the town into a mislynch?

In post 1057, Blair wrote:1. Day 1 I was open to an R2R lynch, and said as much multiple times.

2. Yes, I said I agreed that it appeared he had lied about the vote count. See #1.

3. The case was strong enough for early Day 1, but we have significantly more information now and R2R's defense was the exact defense I referenced on Day 1 (when I said I could only think of one possible excuse), so I'm not sure if it was really a lie.

What was r2r's reasoning that you bought?

Look at me, not doing work and catching up actually

First of all, I wasn't being "dismissive" about your initial question, I was asking you what the purpose of the question was - because it is not generally helpful to reexamine scumreads on dead players.

As to Quick's ego, I do not believe that he "think

In post 1086, Blair wrote:Basically I was thinking "Quick may be setting himself up for a long bus, so whenever we do get around to flipping NPOM he can say 'I was right, my system has been saying NPOM is scum since Day!'"

This should read: "Since Day 1!"

In post 547, ready2rock wrote:Here's my timeline, I reread the thread and posted my thoughts on the game as a whole at that moment, voicing my suspicion of VP among other things. In that time, there were almost 10 new posts made, including both votes on VP. Since I wanted to get my post out there before even more happened, and I hadn't payed a ton of attention to a specific number of votes in the meantime, I wanted to go back and double check that I wasn't putting you at L-1 or anything.

When I went back and read, I realized that I had read a vote on you and someone else quoting a vote on you as 2 votes

, hence why I was saying that I was the 2nd vote. But now that I'm rereading again today, I realize I was right the first time and didn't see votato's vote in double checking

That was it. (bolded for emphasis)

In post 538, Blair wrote:I can only imagine one (not very persuasive) possible explanation if he really was confused, and I will not state it until I've heard an excuse of his own machinations.

This is where I foreshadowed it, but did not disclose it (because I didn't want to give him an answer to just copy).

Thank you for answering. And fair enough on the snark.

Regarding reanalyzing scum reads post flip, I asked you because I do think the case on r2r was better. The day really ended before I thought it would, so I don't think I did a good enough job persuading people to my side and documenting confidence in that wagon. I asked because even though we know the flip, I wanted your mindset explained.

Can you respond to my point about your math?

In post 1082, VP Baltar wrote:Blair's attempt at math for her Gamma vote doesn't even add up. She says it is possible 1 out of 4 people off the wagon is likely scum -- giving us a 25% chance from that pool. HOWEVER, if you were to assume it was a three scum game (which is fairly standard for this size setup unless meta around her has changed), that would mean you could have up to a 2 out of 7 chance of hitting scum on the wagon --- or roughly 28%. Any way you slice this, it doesn't feel statistically significant to me unless you assume only two scum in the game.

Aren't you making a weird sort of logical leap here in assuming if there are three scum that there will be exactly one off wagon and exactly two on-wagon?

(If you aren't assuming that, then you are assuming that I was assuming that - and that my math was wrong because of my bad assumption. That doesn't make sense, though, because I definitely did not say there would be "one" scum off-wagon, I just said I didn't believe they would all be on the wagon together)

No, I said "could have up to a 2 out of 7 chance". My point being that there are too many variables to be certain in your assessment. At best, you could say the scum placement possibilities are near equal in the wagon or off wagon groups. I think you either didn't think this through all the way, or are trying to bolster a weak argument by making it seem grounded in statistics.

In post 1086, Blair wrote:P-edit: I'll ISO him and find the quote from him, but basically when I initially looked into the vote count after you said he was lying, I started scrolling and saw "two votes," then realized one of them was actually in a quote block and thought "whoops, that's one vote, actually." I kept scrolling to make sure the quoted vote was current, and it was, but guessed that R2R probably didn't do that diligence. That ended up being his explanation, and since his explanation matched my (unstated) explanation, I'm inclined to believe it.

Looking back at this as well. He explained his reasoning in #547, which you say you believed.

But in post #570 you said this:

In post 570, Blair wrote:No, I think R2R lied about the vote count for some unknowable reason. I pretty plainly said I'd be okay with lynching him today if I can't have Quick.

you said he's still lying and that you'd be OK with lynching him. I don't believe you ever said yesterday that you believed his reason given. Am I missing something?

In post 1082, VP Baltar wrote:HOWEVER, if you were to assume it was a three scum game (which is fairly standard for this size setup unless meta around her has changed), that would mean you could have up to a 2 out of 7 chance of hitting scum on the wagon --- or roughly 28%. Any way you slice this, it doesn't feel statistically significant to me unless you assume only two scum in the game.

I would contend your math is askew, not mine.

Starting from the base assumption of this discussion (not all scum are on the wagon), and the reasonable inverse (not all scum are off the wagon) we are left with at least one scum in seven and at least one scum in four. Then, if there is a third scum, the third scum has a 2/3 chance of being on the wagon, or a 1/3 chance of being off.

Doesn't that still add up to "We have better odds off the wagon than on it"?

In post 1094, VP Baltar wrote:you said he's still lying and that you'd be OK with lynching him. I don't believe you ever said yesterday that you believed his reason given. Am I missing something?

You're right, I never said I believed him yesterday.

I waffled back and forth a bit on whether or not I bought his excuse. I'm still waffling on it. It's not a verifiable thing. I was okay with testing it on Day 1, because zero information Day 1 lynches are historically risky, today I think we can do better though.

(Final note on the math: In case anyone is confused, the short version is that the BEST case scenario on-wagon is 28% and the WORST case on-wagon is 14%. The WORST case scenario off-wagon is 25% while the BEST case is 50%. So the best case scenario on-wagon is only 3% better than the worst case scenario off-wagon)

In post 1095, Blair wrote:

In post 1082, VP Baltar wrote:HOWEVER, if you were to assume it was a three scum game (which is fairly standard for this size setup unless meta around her has changed), that would mean you could have up to a 2 out of 7 chance of hitting scum on the wagon --- or roughly 28%. Any way you slice this, it doesn't feel statistically significant to me unless you assume only two scum in the game.

I would contend your math is askew, not mine.

Starting from the base assumption of this discussion (not all scum are on the wagon), and the reasonable inverse (not all scum are off the wagon) we are left with at least one scum in seven and at least one scum in four. Then, if there is a third scum, the third scum has a 2/3 chance of being on the wagon, or a 1/3 chance of being off.

Doesn't that still add up to "We have better odds off the wagon than on it"?

So by that, shouldn't the 1/3 be priority????

I think my point is that you can't actually know the distribution unless you know more than me.

If that was your point, then why didn't you say that instead of saying we were 3% more likely to hit scum on the wagon?

A statement that can only be true if you know more than me?