|
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 00:06 Keirathi wrote:No. No, no, no to every single one of your points. Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 21:27 JingleHell wrote:
We won't have any concrete information.
I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town.
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. Show nested quote + JingleHell wrote:
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.
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.
|
Well, we've just wasted half a day discussing the no lynch policy rather than hunting mafia. I suspect there is 1 or more mafia currently on the esspen wagon. We've had Keirathi, JingleHell, JieXian and myself discussing the no lynch for awhile now, while dNa and NrGmonk, who posted after the discussion started, haven't said a word about it and threw their votes on esspen. I'm starting to suspect that esspen really isn't mafia, but I don't think I can push a solid case on either of those 2 in this MYLO situation with what I currently have. Maybe they'll post later, but I am actually going to vote for the no lynch for now.
##Vote no lynch
|
And with that, I'm off to bed. I'll be around maybe 30 minutes to an hour before the lynch on my phone to change my vote if events develop further.
|
But right now, it sounds like a distinctly bad-for-town suggestion.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On July 03 2012 00:06 Keirathi wrote:No. No, no, no to every single one of your points. Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 21:27 JingleHell wrote:
We won't have any concrete information.
I can't imagine a scenario where this could possibly benefit the town.
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. Show nested quote + JingleHell wrote:
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.
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.
I'm really finding trouble seeing the benefits to your proposition............... why wait 1 more day? WE can roleclaim right away if you want. I see a absolutely no sense in giving in to a 3-4 when we have a 3-5.
Your doctor proposition is a waaaaaaaaay riskier gamble as compared to the evidence we have against Esspen that you discredited.
|
Wait a minute are you in a way beating round the bush to create doubt on Esspen ......
|
I'll wait for a while in case you can make me realised that I've missed something but otherwise, good night.
I'm going to set my alarm for lynch time too. Hope I don't miss it if I made the wrong move.
|
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.
|
On July 03 2012 01:35 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
United States11308 Posts
On July 03 2012 01:52 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:35 JingleHell wrote: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. 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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
Of course I'm not going to role claim. I claimed vanilla like 3 days ago. If I thought it would help town, I would offer myself up as a sacrifice so that blue roles would have another night for possible information. But that's obviously not possible at this point. In hindsight, maybe I should have proposed it yesterday to defuse the Vivax vs You situation.
As far as a case against me; I proposed all of this BEFORE anyone started laying out their case against Esspen, so its not like I knew who I would be "defending". I have no problem voting him, because he seems to have given up. That's unacceptable and ruins the spirit of the game, and if he's town, actually costs us the game.
But that aside, its still not the point. I honestly believe that the possibility of concrete information combined with the different voting odds, combine with the guaranteed elimination of 1, and possibly multiple, suspects outweighs this minor point you keep harping on. We have a difference of opinion; all I can really say is that my opinion is based on various successes and failures in similar situations from my past mafia experience, which is irrelevent because I can't document it and was in a different environment, with different, like-minded individuals.
Also, your hypothesis seems to hang on the premise that mafia won't vote on one of their own, if its benefits them.
|
United States11308 Posts
My hypothesis hangs on the fact that under the current circumstances, we can't do anything but look at the numbers, and the numbers make it harder to lynch scum, all else being equal, with less townies.
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.
|
The only way I could possibly be scum is if I agreed with you about town being better off voting today, but defended town voting tomorrow. Does it honestly sound like I have any inkling of agreement with you?
|
United States11308 Posts
That doesn't make even the remotest semblance of sense. Let me paraphrase what you just said:
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.
|
+ Show Spoiler [Out of game preface] +Yes, yesterday was my birthday. I would apologize for not wanting to be here more, but that would be lying =D
I'm catching up on the No-Lynch vs. Esspen case right now. ATM, I'm leaning towards Esspen. I've given the poor guy lots of chances through this game, but I think I need to re-look at him.
I'm not 100% against a No-Lynch, but right now it's all just theory and probability. I would rather try to make a read on people than hope we have any blues left.
|
United States8476 Posts
I didn't comment on no-lynch because I thought it was going to be just a distracting idea and I wanted to steer the conversation towards a new direction. And that's exactly what it's turned out to be so far. Here's one way to look at it.
I think we've all concluded that either Esspen is mafia or that he's terrible at the game, or he's confused about the game. So either he's mafia or he's a bad townie. So the possible scenarios are:
- We lynch Esspen and he is mafia-obviously good for us.
- We lynch Esspen and he is townie-pretty much game over.
- We no-lynch and Esspen is mafia-worse situation than situation 1. We're going to have only 4 townies, and everyone's going to bandwagon on Esspen the next round. We might not get any role claims, and we're going to be down 1 townie from then on out.
- We no-lynch and Esspen is townie-This mean that Esspen is an uncooperative townie, and that it's going to be extremely difficult for everyone to agree and finish the game.
I honestly don't see much merit for no-lynch when we have what I believe is such a solid case against Esspen. Honestly, if Esspen is a townie, then this game is already over, as I don't see it possible for us to get him aboard. Basically, I see no benefits to keeping him alive, and we might as well bet, with good odds I might add, that Esspen is mafia.
Also, I don't think Keirathi is considering just the thought power that comes with 4 townies instead of 3. If we lynch a mafia member today, assuming we pick right, it will be 4 townies to 2 mafia tomorrow. If we decide no lynch, then in two days, it will be 3 townies to 2 mafia. The first case scenario is much much more desirable in terms of the ability for the 4 townies to reason and not get overwhelmed. We're basically betting that Esspen is mafia to get a 4:2 townie to mafia ratio instead of a 3:2 ratio, which again, is a bet I would definitely make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
