Mafiascum.net

if you were right, which you are not, every scum would pick numbers like 3948 23093 2989478 to guarantee PR picks. Which obviously they are not.

In post 289, DrDolittle wrote:even if you are town, how do you know scum players haven't thought about your line, and have players like you in the lobby to provide them with free defense?

independently, I don't buy this line of thinking, and I don't think you should be townread for suggesting it.

because across 14 games, not a single game has seen scum double-up on a teammate's number. why of all games would scum suddenly think to subvert number analysis in this 15th run specifically? i think we can infer based on history that scum won't double up. it's clear that the only realistic way it could have happened is if i'm scum.

but if i'm town, you must admit, these are some telling statistics.

the disproportionate distribution of scum at the top of the draft/on single numbers is jarring. the only argument against the numbers is how much we should be weighting them in our decision-making. if you think i'm scum obviously weight them less.

i'm not even suggesting we should blindly execute a singleton. i could settle for a doubled up player. as far as i'm concerned, the main players that should be off the table today is the trio of word/crayons/iamausername. the odds of one of these players being scum is so low we'd need overwhelming evidence to take a shot there.

I like, just don't agree with this, especially this line:
"the main players that should be off the table today is the trio of word/crayons/iamausername. the odds of one of these players being scum is so low we'd need overwhelming evidence to take a shot there."

In post 301, Hoopla wrote:it's clear that the only realistic way it could have happened is if i'm scum.

fwiw i'd also fairly-strongly encourage my team to pair

Either way, from scum or town, I think effort wise Hoopla is definitely inclined to town, and my hoghest tl; the point was that scum can cast the same argument without the enormous effort (and possibly fun) of revolecting and analysing data, wich is more likely of someone who wants to genuinely look for tips on where scum is

In post 293, Something_Smart wrote:Wrt to the latter quoted line, everyone is focusing on the shitpost and forgetting about the distinctly non-shitposty 67. Though it's obviously not a be-all end-all, it is a serious plan.

me stating my preference for pressuring the singletons first isn't a "plan" - it's just that: my preference.

make your own decisions.

In post 302, DrDolittle wrote:I like, just don't agree with this, especially this line:
"the main players that should be off the table today is the trio of word/crayons/iamausername. the odds of one of these players being scum is so low we'd need overwhelming evidence to take a shot there."

i will not be leaving them alone
crayons is probably town. word is kinda, i don't know, maybe he's fine. username is sketchy.
if i scumread them i'll scumcase them and if that isn't overwhelming evidence then i'll elim whoever says so too :3

In post 301, Hoopla wrote:the disproportionate distribution of scum at the top of the draft/on single numbers is jarring.

and I think many people have pointed this out already but you need to do a similar distribution for town to compare...

town distribution is just the inverse of scum distribution isn't it?

like on all fronts except literally number chosen

In post 305, Hoopla wrote:me stating my preference for pressuring the singletons first isn't a "plan" - it's just that: my preference.

Fair enough. Point was that people were saying you wanting to kill higher-ups was a joke, when it wasn't.

In post 309, the worst wrote:like on all fronts except literally number chosen

This is, I assume, the front that is being referred to. I too am curious about it.

here is my issue with your "preference". You are using "logic" to support the "preference", but the "logic" is (I feel) inadequate, which you still have not acknowledged (and is a simple fix). Yet by saying "preference", its almost uncritcizable, and I don't like that. Someone else can probably explain better than me.

In post 302, DrDolittle wrote:I like, just don't agree with this, especially this line:
"the main players that should be off the table today is the trio of word/crayons/iamausername. the odds of one of these players being scum is so low we'd need overwhelming evidence to take a shot there."

why?

at most there is one scum in the triples. and across 14 games, there have been 13 triples; of which, only 6 have had scum. half the time all three are town. the other half it's 1 in 3.

they may as well be the basis of a townbloc in my eyes.

People like Hoopla have smart ideas that I'm literally not going to try and understand because logic hurts my brain. I will play mafia like a peasant and report back with my reads. If I feel that the logic is a strong enough factor to offset my reads I'll listen to it, if not I don't really give a toss what Hoopla's meta preference is.

Just ignore it and play mafia imo

In post 300, DrDolittle wrote:if you were right, which you are not, every scum would pick numbers like 3948 23093 2989478 to guarantee PR picks. Which obviously they are not.

Given that the worst said she also would encourage 2 ppl going for the same digits, it seems that ppl would at least; but the point was not that scum would aim to get middle rank prs; i dnt see ur point on why scum would only want to go for high numbers. There is a tangent benefit on going for a 1 for example; u can get a high PR OR u can bounce a town from getting one, but there is literally no benefit in scum to make scum bounce among themselves, only to bounce with town, and maybe set it up so at leas 1 can get a pr

wich was my main original point, scum dsnt necessarily just pick a low number, as as a team they could a for a high one too, and since high numbers have higher dispertion, it would be poorly reflected in stadistics; i do find basis on them getting less intersections

and Ill stop with theory for now

please don't use my name in vain, I'll be going for whoever I think is scum!

Hoopla, I don't fully agree with that, but I agree it's a reasonable starting point. The thing is that if we get stronger townreads on some of the tripled players, it weakens the mechanical reason to townread the other. For instance I already agree with tw that Green Crayons is > rand town. This puts me a little lower on word and username than I otherwise would have been.

In post 307, DrDolittle wrote:

In post 301, Hoopla wrote:the disproportionate distribution of scum at the top of the draft/on single numbers is jarring.

and I think many people have pointed this out already but you need to do a similar distribution for town to compare...

for distribution of where scum land in the draft, you don't need town to compare, as there are a fixed amount of slots: 1st to 14th.

you need to compare for the breakdown of singletons vs. doubles vs. triples etc, as a game can have 10 singles or two, 5 doubles or none etc. for that data set i list the distribution of town to compare.

do you think 6/39 is significantly different from 3/14?
regardless I'm just gonna take the worst's advice on this

my advice is pretty great ngl

word is english your first language or is it a romance language?

I still dnt like u doc
U just changed ur point from "hoopla may be wifoming us with the theory hence NAI" to "Hoopla is used flawed theory and hasnt aknowledge it, hence nai"

it's literally almost completely irrelevant what hoopla is doing with theory rn as long as we are not sheeps.

are you sheeps? or are you... animal-speaking doctors and hats?