| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 20:31 Esspen wrote: I agree with all of you! Uhm, half of what you're blindly posting nonsense to agree with is accusations against you. You might want to read through them and start considering some sort of actual defense. ##Vote Esspen | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 01 2012 16:46 BassInSpace wrote: + Show Spoiler + On July 01 2012 09:18 JingleHell wrote: Well, answering that requires that we understand what the scum were thinking. We don't, so all we can do is drive ourselves into a state of paranoia trying to metagame the people who know more than us. The best thing we can do is try to find the case where Milton being dead is beneficial to the scum. Look at his discussions, look at his thought process, look at other people's thought processes about him. Time to dive into the filters and start trying to piece things together, IMO. + Show Spoiler + On July 01 2012 09:30 JingleHell wrote: Milton calls Keirathi scummy. Which was something Vivax also thought before the OMGUS against me exploded into a rather unfortunate shitstorm. + Show Spoiler + On June 30 2012 07:59 Miltonkram wrote: Keirathi, the question doesn't come down to "what does town lose if player X is telling the truth." It comes down to who you think is scum. The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you does not reflect well on your alignment. Here is why I'm voting Vivax over JingleHell: Vivax's play has been incredibly scummy, JingleHell's has not. It's that simple. On June 30 2012 08:02 Miltonkram wrote: EBWOP: "The fact that you acknowledge that there is a decent case against him but you don't vote for him does not reflect well on your alignment." Keirathi, of course, was right in the thick of a lot of the hot points of that mess, and now he's trying to discuss policy when we're in a world of trouble numerically. Milton's other suspicion mentioned at one point... Bear in mind, even though yesterday went terribly, Milton was one of the few people really trying to consider the cases, and look at alternatives even after it started exploding. This isn't even a read, this is ONLY Milton's last couple of times saying someone looked scummy, which gives us a place to start looking. After the debacle, I'm going to be as methodical as possible to avoid a town loss because of another OMGUS shouting match. These are only highlights, please read filters and help with this, the last thing we want is for scum to poke and prod us into a horrid bandwagon. JingleHell, I feel like your second post is doing exactly what you cautioned against in your first post: metagaming the people who know more than us. Besides, I don't think Milton's point against keirathi holds any weight anymore, considering how Vivax flipped. Here's what got me considering that sidetrack. In retrospect, it feels like a rather obvious false trail. No contribution to the point he's bringing up, but it could easily be encouraged into tons and tons of finger pointing in every direction. Hell, it almost worked. On July 01 2012 09:13 Esspen wrote: I'm confused, why would mafia kill somebody we suspected of being mafia? Wtf? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
I'm not voting for Esspen based on some sort of scum ulterior motive, like you seem to be suggesting. My vote on Esspen comes from generally scummy behavior, and the fact that twice now, he's vote-switched at the last minute to set up the only living person I know is town. Granted, I can't prove my innocence in any foolproof way. The best I can do is ask that you please give a read on me that doesn't involve rofls, or Esspen, and treat those as "potential additional weight", rather than the basis for a case. I've already explained the best rationale I can think of for Esspen's switch. While I understand why I'm under scrutiny at this point, all I ask is that we have more reasoning behind any votes against me than there were supporting yesterdays catastrophe of an OMGUS. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 02 2012 10:04 NrGmonk wrote: No one's posted in 5 hours O_O. Well, I didn't feel the need to respond directly to your analysis, and I didn't want to spam it out of existence, because it makes a lot of sense. If there's anything you'd like my input on (I have kind of already given mine on Esspen, including a vote, after all), I'll happily get on it. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 02 2012 15:09 Keirathi wrote: No. I'm gambling on the fact that the probability of having concrete information tomorrow is greater than the certainty that we have ZERO concrete information today. We won't have any concrete information. Unless you expect the scum to actually claim red roles, which I'm guessing isn't on the agenda. What we'll have is fewer town votes than today, and the same amount of good information. I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town. If it was early game and there were a lot of lurkers, to the point of it nearly being a shot in the dark, no lynch could easily make some sense. But not when it's so perilously close to us losing, and as good a case against one person as we could hope for. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 00:06 Keirathi wrote: No. No, no, no to every single one of your points. How do you know we won't have any concrete information? Lets just make a hypothetical situation: Let's say I'm a doctor, and tonight I decide to protect you. I did my last minute role claim, saying that I'm protecting you tonight, and no one else claims any kind of vet/doc/jailer role. Day dawns tomorrow, and no one dies. I get a PM that my target was shot, and I share that information with the town. Now there are 2 people that are 100% clear (The Doc and his Target). Everything they've said and everything they will say, none of it has scummy motives; you don't have to try to pick apart their arguments. I'm not sure why you don't see the benefit of this. Yes, there is a chance that we have no useful information and we are back at this exact same spot tomorrow, but if we do by some miracle get concrete information, we are in a MUCH BETTER spot tomorrow. That's really all I can say. I don't want to spoon-feed the mafia with what to do to hard-counter my proposal. There are definitely more solid cases that can be made. Lets go back to my previous hypothetical. Now we have 2 people that are completely clean, and then 6 people (there was a doc save) that are still suspects. Even just the elimination of 2 people from the suspect pool has some subtle (and in some case, not so subtle) changes on every other individual suspect's case. Every thing that the 2 clear people have said has slightly more weight just because of the fact that we KNOW they aren't lying. Anyone who has every made an accusation towards the 2 clear people now looks slightly scummier, just because of the what-if of them being mafia and knowing that the cleared people were town beforehand. That said, there's not NECESSARILY a more solid case that can be made in our situation, even if we no-lynch. Its a gambling game (although, despite what everyone thinks, i don't think losing a townie is actually detrimental, ie 4 townies to vote tomorrow vs 5 today, but i can't seem to get the idea from my head and expressed into print in a convincing way, so I'm intentionally avoiding those arguments) on the hope that we do have blue role claims with good information. There's a very good possibility that we don't, but at the same time, I don't see how the case against Esspen changes any if we're back in this spot tomorrow. It doesn't magically make his case not the strongest still, it just means that maybe we have other information to consider alongside it. So basically, you're suggesting that we play russian roulette, but with 5 bullets and one empty chamber? No thanks. If you can post an argument that doesn't rely on a hypothetical best-case pure luck scenario for your suggestion to be a good idea, that's one thing. But right now, it sounds like a distinctly bad-for-town suggestion. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 00:57 Keirathi wrote: This is the part of your argument that I don't understand. Right now: We have no concrete information, but a decent circumstantial case against Esspen. Worst Case Scenario tomorrow: We still have no concrete information, but still have a decent circumstantial case against Esspen. I don't see how that is distinctly bad for town. In fact, in every case EXCEPT for the worst case, its distinctly good for town. Every case except the worst case isn't a real analysis though. Right now, there's 3 scum. There's 8 of us total. Assuming we no-lynch and HAVE a doctor, since that's the only example you've given that provides real information, he has to pick 1 of 7 people who aren't himself to protect. Assuming he actually has perfect scum reads, that leaves him a 25% chance of picking the correct person to protect with his WIFOM logic. If he has 2 of the 3 scum pegged accurately, it drops to a 20% chance. It gets nothing but worse from there, down to ~17% and ~14%. So, in the best case scenario on your no-lynch plan, it's actually only a 25% chance of providing information. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 01:26 Keirathi wrote: The same logic applies to jailer as it does to Doctor. Veteran would be slightly different, as only 1 person is clear rather than two, but same principals. DT is, of course, a different ballgame (albeit a less trustworthy one). But you hit the nail on the head: today we have 0 information. Tomorrow we have a 14-25% chance of information per bleu role we have. Maybe we have 0 blue roles, which is our absolute worst case scenario. We don't lose anything by prolonging our decision by a day to see if we do in fact gain information. But it still comes down to a ridiculous gamble, and it still all involves a lot of second guessing everything. And we potentially DO lose something, in losing a townie vote. And no matter what roleclaims pop up, it still comes down to neurotic metagame recursive logic to decide if we're thinking what the scum want us to think or not. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 01:52 Keirathi wrote: Let me put it to you like this: You are walking down the street today, and someone hands you a random Lottery ticket thats scheduled to be drawn tomorrow. When you get home, do you throw it away? Or do you check the numbers tomorrow just on the off-chance that you've beaten all probability? No, see, that's not a valid analogy, because with the lottery ticket, if I don't win, I don't lose anything. In your suggestion of no lynch, we DO lose something if we don't win. Your continued refusal to look at this objectively is only making me wonder about your motives. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 02:00 Keirathi wrote: I just don't agree with you that we do lose something. In fact, I think we GAIN something, in having less people to make cases against and therefor better voting odds. But, like I said, I can't seem to articulate my thoughts into print here, so I've avoided that argument. Better odds? Right now, with 8 people, we can have a single townie get misled and avoid a mislynch, as long as the scum gets 4 votes first. At 7 people, a single misled townie is 100% disaster for us. The only people who get "better voting odds" are the scum. You're either a hopelessly misguided optimist, or scum. After Esspen flips red, we're going to have a pretty much airtight case against you. Or were you hoping to fake a roleclaim to keep yourself out of the spotlight? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
And frankly, setting it up before suspicion dropped on Esspen would be the only way to go if you were scum. If things were pointing at a townie for a mislynch, you could easily just not press the case for no-lynch. But since you mentioned it early, it becomes a viable contingency plan in case there's pressure, without seeming like a direct attempt to misdirect attention off of a scum. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
The only way I could be scum would be if I agreed with you that better mathematical odds are good, but kept pushing for a very anti-town decision that would, conveniently, protect the single most clear scum-read in the game. You don't have to have more flip flops than Daytona Beach to make what you're pushing for seem pretty ridiculous. The evidence already does that. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
A no-lynch scenario for information and time only makes sense if there's a lot of people and little information. Get it down to the wire like this, where there's almost no time left, and there's plenty of available information to sift through, and lynching makes sense. This isn't a game of chance, it's an educated guessing game. Some of us are actually trying to play that. If you want to play odds, try cards or dice. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
You can gamble in a game where the random factors aren't what make the game. Yes, this game is about educated guesses and gambles, nobody argues that. But luck isn't what determines the outcome. The hosts don't throw an eight sided die and the corresponding player gets lynched. That's russian roulette, essentially. We pick, based on all available information. And I've already pointed out, numerically, why the odds are stacked against your plan of combining a throw of the dice and WIFOM and hoping lady luck is with us. What you're trying to do now is railroad a bad plan over everybody. I don't know if it's emotional investment or ulterior motive, but given that Monk has used similar reasoning and you didn't respond to him nearly the same as you did to me, it's clear that you've got success of something tied to this plan in your mind, and it somehow involves me. Now I'm with Monk. We should forget about this no-lynch nonsense, and start working on the next set of suspicions. However, I'm getting a little frustrated right now, so I'd like some time to compose myself before I start my work on that, to avoid tunneling or confirmation bias, as I'd like to be objective so we can be as sure as possible of catching the scum. Does anyone have any reads to post? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Trying to evoke an emotional response to avoid debate doesn't help anyone, except maybe the scum, so stop doing it. In particular, when I've already hinted I'm done with the discussion, and said I want time to compose myself before making a case, you trying to push the argument just looks like an effort to discredit any future reads I make. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 05:36 Keirathi wrote: That's exactly what you've done to me. Seriously, where do I go from here? If I refuse to vote Esspen because I truly believe my plan can work, then I look scummy. If I vote Esspen, then I didn't really believe it in the first place, so I look scummy. I'm really in a lose-lose situation now. No, if you're town and truly believe your plan can work, that's up to you, although in light of the arguments against it, it comes back to what I said earlier about hopeless optimism. I did suggest that as a possible alternative to scum. I'm not going to make a case against you based off of just one thing, or off of an emotional reaction. I'm committing words, more than once now, to both of those being distinct possible alternatives to scum out of your behavior. Under the circumstances, you should be glad for that, as it's a big grain of salt that can be applied to any reads on you based on everything you've done, although I still intend to go through your filter with a fine-toothed comb. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
And Vivax, remember. As town, it's perception and persuasion, not knowledge, that matter. I (barely) took that because I was able to make your side of it look scummy, even though you were pushing the right target for the wrong reason. Like I said, you did a fair job on reads and analysis, but you started working from that angle a little late. If you'd posted like you did right before you got lynched through that whole day, this would be heading for a townie victory right now, and we'd both be in the Obs QT, from a Jingle lynch, Vivax NK. GG all. Monk, you had me nervous a couple times. You were one of my biggest fears, since you know me a little. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  30797Calm  9812Rain 6184Horang2 2186EffOrt 1201PianO  670Stork 656BeSt 252Sea.KH 92Hyun 75[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games singsing2095 B2W.Neo1663 crisheroes624 Beastyqt449 Happy448 C9.Mang0350 Fuzer  209KnowMe126 RotterdaM121 Rex33 |
|
WardiTV Qualifier
BSL: ProLeague
Bonyth vs Dewalt
Cross vs Doodle
MadiNho vs Dragon
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Cure vs Percival
ByuN vs Spirit
RSL Revival
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
