[Fanderay]

Iparth Erule, on 11 September 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

Iparth Erule, on 11 September 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

In truth, I'm really starting to enjoy pushing your buttons.

So you ADMIT you're a troll?

Just to you.....your special

You're*

You win that one

[Path-Shaper]

Anthras, on 11 September 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Okaros, on 11 September 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Hey Tap, what's up with Lock? Mod kill?



edit. engrish

I dislike this.

Vote Fanderay

The Mod can do what the mod wants to do. Lock hasn't posted yet, so what. People said they are pushed for time and day is not even up yet. Usually modkill is at 36 hours, and these days are 32.

Agreed. Lock may well make it into Day 2 without having posted but I won't be happy about it. That up up to PS though.

Lock mentioned work pressure and their posting window wasn't ideal with the starting time. Any mod-kill happening will be at the earliest tomorrow.

[Fanderay]

Okaros, on 11 September 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Hey Tap, what's up with Lock? Mod kill?



edit. engrish

I dislike this.

Vote Fanderay

Lock hasn't posted yet, so what.

Really? If you sign up to play, you should at least show up a little bit.

How does that warrant a vote? I would think asking people to vote for them would be more vote worthy.

[Path-Shaper]

It is day 1. 3 hours and 34 minutes left. 

15 are alive. 8 to lynch, 8 for night.


3 vote for Fanderay (Nimander Golit, Iparth Irule, Okaros)
1 vote for Gait (Jalan)
3 vote for Anthras (Cast, Hentos Ilm, Bendal Home)
1 vote for Iparth Irule (Fanderay)

Not voted: Anthras, Dejim Nebrahl, Emurlahn, Gait, Karosis, Lock, Meanas

[Fanderay]

Path-Shaper, on 11 September 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Anthras, on 11 September 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Okaros, on 11 September 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Hey Tap, what's up with Lock? Mod kill?



edit. engrish

I dislike this.

Vote Fanderay

The Mod can do what the mod wants to do. Lock hasn't posted yet, so what. People said they are pushed for time and day is not even up yet. Usually modkill is at 36 hours, and these days are 32.

Agreed. Lock may well make it into Day 2 without having posted but I won't be happy about it. That up up to PS though.

Lock mentioned work pressure and their posting window wasn't ideal with the starting time. Any mod-kill happening will be at the earliest tomorrow.

See! Okaros. that is why I asked.

[Okaros]

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 11 September 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Anthras, on 11 September 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Okaros, on 11 September 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Hey Tap, what's up with Lock? Mod kill?



edit. engrish

I dislike this.

Vote Fanderay

The Mod can do what the mod wants to do. Lock hasn't posted yet, so what. People said they are pushed for time and day is not even up yet. Usually modkill is at 36 hours, and these days are 32.

Agreed. Lock may well make it into Day 2 without having posted but I won't be happy about it. That up up to PS though.

Lock mentioned work pressure and their posting window wasn't ideal with the starting time. Any mod-kill happening will be at the earliest tomorrow.

See! Okaros. that is why I asked.

That ^ is why you should not have had to ask. What's it to you that a player hasn't posted yet? They either will or they won't but asking for them to be modkilled is just dirty business.

[Bendal Home]

Nimander Golit, on 11 September 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

Bendal Home, on 11 September 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Nimander Golit, on 11 September 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

Bendal Home, on 11 September 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

I've seen enough of Google Translate for this week, so

Vote Anthras


Just so that this thread becomes easier to read.

Also, Nimander, what's up with the spamming during vote time?

Isn't the whole day vote time?


And I've already voted, so not got much else to do I guess.

Sure, but we've had more votes in last hour than we had all day.and you're just mounting distractions.

Are you sure that you're not the one 'mounting' distractions by making a much bigger deal of it than it actually was? Looks to me like you're trying a mite too hard to have something constructive to say when you don't have anything to say at all.

As you've probably noted, I'm testing you on cooperative play.

Why? Well, probability theory.

This is day one, we have little information on the factions in this thread, so let's assume, for a start, we have zero. So if you vote randomly, the chance of voting for someone in your faction is just (f - 1) / (N-1), with f being the faction size and N being the total number of players present, assuming you don't vote for yourself. If we assume three equal factions of size 5, the probability of hitting someone in your faction is 4/14.

Now, if you suspect two players are cooperating without knowing if they belong to your faction or not, voting for one of them increases the odds of not voting for someone in your faction. If we assume to people to be in a faction together, that means there are (f - 2) other people left in that faction, one of which might be you. This means that the probability of you being their faction is (f - 2) / (N - 2). In case of a three equal faction game, this equates to 3/13. So, if you vote for one of the two cooperating players, you have a probability of 3/13 you're voting for one of your fellow faction members.

So, voting for one of the suspected cooperative players increases your odds of hitting someone outside your faction with about 5% (10/13 versus 10/14).

However, it's only 5% if you're certain of cooperative play. If you're uncertain, that uncertainty will decrease your odds back to 10/14.

That's why I was testing you.

[Emurlahn]

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 11 September 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Anthras, on 11 September 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Okaros, on 11 September 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Hey Tap, what's up with Lock? Mod kill?



edit. engrish

I dislike this.

Vote Fanderay

The Mod can do what the mod wants to do. Lock hasn't posted yet, so what. People said they are pushed for time and day is not even up yet. Usually modkill is at 36 hours, and these days are 32.

Agreed. Lock may well make it into Day 2 without having posted but I won't be happy about it. That up up to PS though.

Lock mentioned work pressure and their posting window wasn't ideal with the starting time. Any mod-kill happening will be at the earliest tomorrow.

See! Okaros. that is why I asked.

You asked several hours in advance, and are spending time on thread talking about someone who has literally nothing to comment on, which is basically just increasing your post count and nothing else.

[Fanderay]

Okaros, on 11 September 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

Path-Shaper, on 11 September 2014 - 11:56 AM, said:

Anthras, on 11 September 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Okaros, on 11 September 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Hey Tap, what's up with Lock? Mod kill?



edit. engrish

I dislike this.

Vote Fanderay

The Mod can do what the mod wants to do. Lock hasn't posted yet, so what. People said they are pushed for time and day is not even up yet. Usually modkill is at 36 hours, and these days are 32.

Agreed. Lock may well make it into Day 2 without having posted but I won't be happy about it. That up up to PS though.

Lock mentioned work pressure and their posting window wasn't ideal with the starting time. Any mod-kill happening will be at the earliest tomorrow.

See! Okaros. that is why I asked.

That ^ is why you should not have had to ask. What's it to you that a player hasn't posted yet? They either will or they won't but asking for them to be modkilled is just dirty business.

Bullshit. I asked what was up with him. I asked if he was going to be Mod killed. This a faction game, there is no gain to a mod kill as far as learning anything from someone who hasn't posted. All we would have is one faction down one number with no clues to who their teammates are. What is it to me if he hasn't posted? Everything. The only way to try and find out who is on any team is through interaction. Low posting/not posting in a faction game sucks.

[Iparth Erule]

Bendal Home, on 11 September 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

As you've probably noted, I'm testing you on cooperative play.

Why? Well, probability theory.

This is day one, we have little information on the factions in this thread, so let's assume, for a start, we have zero. So if you vote randomly, the chance of voting for someone in your faction is just (f - 1) / (N-1), with f being the faction size and N being the total number of players present, assuming you don't vote for yourself. If we assume three equal factions of size 5, the probability of hitting someone in your faction is 4/14.

Now, if you suspect two players are cooperating without knowing if they belong to your faction or not, voting for one of them increases the odds of not voting for someone in your faction. If we assume to people to be in a faction together, that means there are (f - 2) other people left in that faction, one of which might be you. This means that the probability of you being their faction is (f - 2) / (N - 2). In case of a three equal faction game, this equates to 3/13. So, if you vote for one of the two cooperating players, you have a probability of 3/13 you're voting for one of your fellow faction members.

So, voting for one of the suspected cooperative players increases your odds of hitting someone outside your faction with about 5% (10/13 versus 10/14).

However, it's only 5% if you're certain of cooperative play. If you're uncertain, that uncertainty will decrease your odds back to 10/14.

That's why I was testing you.

While the basic probability theory may be correct, it's application to a Mafia game of more than M&P complexion is uncertain at best; Put simply, all your assumptions are likely incorrect and thus the whole theory useless.

[Bendal Home]

Iparth Erule, on 11 September 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Bendal Home, on 11 September 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

As you've probably noted, I'm testing you on cooperative play.

Why? Well, probability theory.

This is day one, we have little information on the factions in this thread, so let's assume, for a start, we have zero. So if you vote randomly, the chance of voting for someone in your faction is just (f - 1) / (N-1), with f being the faction size and N being the total number of players present, assuming you don't vote for yourself. If we assume three equal factions of size 5, the probability of hitting someone in your faction is 4/14.

Now, if you suspect two players are cooperating without knowing if they belong to your faction or not, voting for one of them increases the odds of not voting for someone in your faction. If we assume to people to be in a faction together, that means there are (f - 2) other people left in that faction, one of which might be you. This means that the probability of you being their faction is (f - 2) / (N - 2). In case of a three equal faction game, this equates to 3/13. So, if you vote for one of the two cooperating players, you have a probability of 3/13 you're voting for one of your fellow faction members.

So, voting for one of the suspected cooperative players increases your odds of hitting someone outside your faction with about 5% (10/13 versus 10/14).

However, it's only 5% if you're certain of cooperative play. If you're uncertain, that uncertainty will decrease your odds back to 10/14.

That's why I was testing you.

While the basic probability theory may be correct, it's application to a Mafia game of more than M&P complexion is uncertain at best; Put simply, all your assumptions are likely incorrect and thus the whole theory useless.

I think it's only applicable in MAFIA games with more complexity than M&P.

I'm not saying that we have no information, I'm saying there's not much to go on in this thread. One of the few things you can spot, however, is cooperative play (mutual signaling, red herrings) presumably from someone who has information. Even if you're uncertain about cooperative play, taking this bit of information into account increases your odds of voting for someone outside of your faction.

As for the three equal faction, it works better with more factions, but the math gets more complex if the factions are unequal, so I refrained from writing that down, as it would just annoy most of you.

(for 5 x 3 the increase in odds is even better, ~6.6%).

[Nimander Golit]

Bendal Home, on 11 September 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

As you've probably noted, I'm testing you on cooperative play.

Why? Well, probability theory.

This is day one, we have little information on the factions in this thread, so let's assume, for a start, we have zero. So if you vote randomly, the chance of voting for someone in your faction is just (f - 1) / (N-1), with f being the faction size and N being the total number of players present, assuming you don't vote for yourself. If we assume three equal factions of size 5, the probability of hitting someone in your faction is 4/14.

Now, if you suspect two players are cooperating without knowing if they belong to your faction or not, voting for one of them increases the odds of not voting for someone in your faction. If we assume to people to be in a faction together, that means there are (f - 2) other people left in that faction, one of which might be you. This means that the probability of you being their faction is (f - 2) / (N - 2). In case of a three equal faction game, this equates to 3/13. So, if you vote for one of the two cooperating players, you have a probability of 3/13 you're voting for one of your fellow faction members.

So, voting for one of the suspected cooperative players increases your odds of hitting someone outside your faction with about 5% (10/13 versus 10/14).

However, it's only 5% if you're certain of cooperative play. If you're uncertain, that uncertainty will decrease your odds back to 10/14.

That's why I was testing you.

Whatever floats your boat. We all have to get our kicks somehow, I suppose.

[Bendal Home]

Nimander Golit, on 11 September 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Bendal Home, on 11 September 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

As you've probably noted, I'm testing you on cooperative play.

Why? Well, probability theory.

This is day one, we have little information on the factions in this thread, so let's assume, for a start, we have zero. So if you vote randomly, the chance of voting for someone in your faction is just (f - 1) / (N-1), with f being the faction size and N being the total number of players present, assuming you don't vote for yourself. If we assume three equal factions of size 5, the probability of hitting someone in your faction is 4/14.

Now, if you suspect two players are cooperating without knowing if they belong to your faction or not, voting for one of them increases the odds of not voting for someone in your faction. If we assume to people to be in a faction together, that means there are (f - 2) other people left in that faction, one of which might be you. This means that the probability of you being their faction is (f - 2) / (N - 2). In case of a three equal faction game, this equates to 3/13. So, if you vote for one of the two cooperating players, you have a probability of 3/13 you're voting for one of your fellow faction members.

So, voting for one of the suspected cooperative players increases your odds of hitting someone outside your faction with about 5% (10/13 versus 10/14).

However, it's only 5% if you're certain of cooperative play. If you're uncertain, that uncertainty will decrease your odds back to 10/14.

That's why I was testing you.

Whatever floats your boat. We all have to get our kicks somehow, I suppose.

No, I like my boats sinking.

[Iparth Erule]

Bendal Home, on 11 September 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

I think it's only applicable in MAFIA games with more complexity than M&P.

I'm not saying that we have no information, I'm saying there's not much to go on in this thread. One of the few things you can spot, however, is cooperative play (mutual signaling, red herrings) presumably from someone who has information. Even if you're uncertain about cooperative play, taking this bit of information into account increases your odds of voting for someone outside of your faction.

As for the three equal faction, it works better with more factions, but the math gets more complex if the factions are unequal, so I refrained from writing that down, as it would just annoy most of you.

(for 5 x 3 the increase in odds is even better, ~6.6%).

In most of our M&P games, we have scum who have off-thread communications and we almost never manage to lynch one of the two scum because he was playing cooperatively with his partner. You cannot assume cooperative play if someone is trying to change the lynch train. People playing cooperatively will try to hide that, so they may be on different lynch trains/ have arguments/ vote each other, thus what we call distancing.

My point is, while the basics are applicable, you have to assume too much to work off it.

[Fanderay]

Just found this on reddit. Mafia case building 101.

I'm going try to just post the link

Logical Fallacies

[Bendal Home]

Iparth Erule, on 11 September 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Bendal Home, on 11 September 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

I think it's only applicable in MAFIA games with more complexity than M&P.

I'm not saying that we have no information, I'm saying there's not much to go on in this thread. One of the few things you can spot, however, is cooperative play (mutual signaling, red herrings) presumably from someone who has information. Even if you're uncertain about cooperative play, taking this bit of information into account increases your odds of voting for someone outside of your faction.

As for the three equal faction, it works better with more factions, but the math gets more complex if the factions are unequal, so I refrained from writing that down, as it would just annoy most of you.

(for 5 x 3 the increase in odds is even better, ~6.6%).

In most of our M&P games, we have scum who have off-thread communications and we almost never manage to lynch one of the two scum because he was playing cooperatively with his partner. You cannot assume cooperative play if someone is trying to change the lynch train. People playing cooperatively will try to hide that, so they may be on different lynch trains/ have arguments/ vote each other, thus what we call distancing.

My point is, while the basics are applicable, you have to assume too much to work off it.

Sure, we've all done that.

I was just trying to pressure someone to get something other than the usual low poster crap going.

[Cast]

back for today, what's up

[Lock]

Fanderay, on 11 September 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

Lock hasn't even posted yet.

I'm really really really sorry folks! I was home sick yesterday and completely forgot that this game was even running! I'm here now, and reading up, hopefully Tapper, in all his benevolent glory, will see fit not to modkill me!

[Jalan]

Probabilities are all well and good, and the odds are likely that you won't hit your own faction on Day 1, but assuming even factions in a Tapper game is like assuming Vengeance will use proper spelling and grammar.

I actually kind of like my vote - Gait seems content to let night actions provide information, and I can't help but feel my hackles raise at that. He rather contradicts himself- he tries to play up the "no abilities" part of the OP, but then doesn't want to lynch.

So....what the fuck are we supposed to do to advance the game, exactly? Hmmmmm???

[Hentos Ilm]

Jalan, on 11 September 2014 - 01:35 PM, said:

Probabilities are all well and good, and the odds are likely that you won't hit your own faction on Day 1, but assuming even factions in a Tapper game is like assuming Vengeance will use proper spelling and grammar.

I actually kind of like my vote - Gait seems content to let night actions provide information, and I can't help but feel my hackles raise at that. He rather contradicts himself- he tries to play up the "no abilities" part of the OP, but then doesn't want to lynch.

So....what the fuck are we supposed to do to advance the game, exactly? Hmmmmm???

At least its a decent reason. I would consider moving to a Gait vote if it gains enough steam. But I will hold for now as Anthras and Fand are the top two contenders for the moment