California Trilogy: City of Angels - On Camera (Game Over)

[Thok]

Holding a hand over his face to hide his identity, a man starts to speak.

KY Krew is the advocate? That can't be good. Do we want Talilan to switch in now, or do we try to force KY Krew to tell us everything he knows about the decision before the switch happens?

[Thok]

Godwin would facepalm, but he already has his hand on his face.

Carrie, can you try to give us an explanation that doesn't involve a lot of craziness?

What information were you given about the decision?

Have you been told anything new now that you've chosen a door?

[Thok]

Glen Stewart Godwin starts to speak, while keeping his face covered and backing away from Judge Ito. Glen knows better than to stay near a judge.

It seems that we're all waiting for Carrie to speak some more. I basically agree with Locke's analysis of the situation, with the addendum that if Carrie doesn't speak soon, then we will need to see a "change".

Finally, Locke, would you like to say anything about the recent firing?

Tag fixed. - Mod

[Thok]

Carrie, you've claimed that you were told

1. Nothing about the set up
2. That the mafia would be unhappy if you chose the wrong door

Those statements seem to be contradictory. Are either of those statements the truth?

[Thok]

So Ms. Fisher, are you going to answer anybody's question other than the Angel's?

If we should flip a coin, it's only because we think you are up to no good, not Monty Hall.

[Thok]

OK. Now that Carrie has gone through a change, hopefully we'll get more information about the what door to pick, and news from the outside world.

[Thok]

Godwin, still trying to protect his identity by keeping his hand over his face, seems puzzled by the sudden changes.

Carrie, could you clarify your comments about DEATH? It might be important, but I'm not sure what you said.

Also, you claim to know nothing after your switch? Could you confirm this in relatively simple words? (I'm not a complex person and some of this fancy language confuses me.)

Clarence, how likely do you think it is that the former Carrie Fisher was trustworthy?

[Thok]

Godwin wonders how dense an athlete can be. He also realizes that if he had Kobe's millions, he wouldn't have gone to jail in the first place because he had good lawyers. Of course, if he had Kobe's millions, he wouldn't have killed the guy for money.

Sigh. Here's a quick rundown for Kobe.

Most of what we're doing is deciding a decision, rather than looking for evil people. Obviously, you should point out what scum tells you can, but we won't be hanging anybody up by their necks. There are other people who are currently in charge of doing that.

Carrie Fisher was offered a choice of three doors, one good and two bad (good helps town, bad helps scum, seemingly.) Carrie picked one door, another door was revealed and we now have a chance to stay with Carrie's door or switch. As you should know, this is a version of the Monty Hall problem, and in the abstract, our best choice is to switch.

The problem is that things aren't abstract, but rather that today's original Carrie was very likely evil, base on events that you can see today and yesterday. (For example, that Carrie didn't give a straight answer to half the questions he was asked today, and brought up talks of cults when that seemed unlikely.)

The more we think Carrie was evil, the more likely we should be tempted to stay, except at some point we start seeing wine in from of you, me, and everybody. The question is whether that wine switches the choice, or whether we should just stay with evil Carrie's original choice.

Also, Mrs. Newmar, my general inclination is to stay, given that it's fairly likely that the original Carrie today was likely to be evil. But I'm not yet ready to vote (and my real life counterpart went through about half a box off Kleenix yesterday with a cold. I should be better.)

[Thok]

I'm confused as to why the current Carrie thinks I'm trying to cloud the issue about whether the original Carrie is evil. One comment I've made was in response to Mr. Odbody being ambivalent: it's clear my question there was to extract info from Mr. Odbody rather than to suggest the possibility of Carrie's innocence.

(It's certainly more obvious that was my intention was inquisitive than a similar comment you made yesterday, Godwin thought to himself.)

In the other posts I've made, it was clear that I think the former Carrie is evil, since I provided my reasons for thinking she is evil. I only comment that it is merely likely since I don't know she is evil, and won't know until her head is in a noose and her identity shown to all of us. But I find it useless to think that she is good.

I'd also still like to hear you reexplain you comments about DEATH (or at least tell us we can ignore that, or something.)

The head of my real life counterpart has cleared up some. I should be making more posts soon, as well as a vote on the decision.

[Thok]

Godwin drops his hand, and in a sudden motion grabs the judge and pulls a gun that he waves at the other players.

"You should have ignored me until the police were here. I can't afford to go back to the slammer, and I certainly won't leave anyone who will flap his mouth about me."

"Don't try to be a hero," Godwin shouts at the other seven as he vaguely points his gun at the crowd, while dragging the judge away from them.

For what it's worth Mr. Ito, I agree with your worries about Ms. Newmar, as she's not said what she thinks about the decision. I have similar concerns about Pooky.

My line of thought is this. If the original Carrie truly did know nothing and was working for us, we would switch 100% without thinking, as that would give us the best chance of winning. That means that the optimal strategy for an evil Carrie would be to pick the good door 100% of the time. Because we agree that the original Carrie was evil, we can anticipate this and WIFOM starts coming into play, but I feel it drops the 100% chance to something like 66%, rather than 50% (or even farther.)

Obviously more information can affect the decision (hence why we have discussion.) And some players will trust their gut rather than the numbers.

[Thok]

Godwin, annoyed by Carrie's demands and stressed by the current showdown, aims his gun towards Carrie and shouts loudly "If you don't stop asking for a donut, I'm going to put a hole in you." All the while he keeps a strong grip on Judge Ito.

I'm getting annoyed by Carrie. She seems to have no comments about the fact that she misrepresented me today, except to repeat her insistence that I and those that attack her are obviously evil. If Carrie is good, then she is behaving similar to her role in Blues Brothers, so blinded by rage over a slight that she acts violently and irrationally.

Also, unlike her, I think that Locke's position on the situation is clear, given what has happened (in the sense that I believe he has clearly indicated what door he is likely to pick, and that he was one of the earliest people to make that indication, albeit an indication that was dependent on certain conditions; he made these observations even before the newest version of Carrie arrived.) He may have changed his mind, but he has also indicated that he would prefer to hear of the old Carrie's fate before discussing that. In pointing this out, I am merely mentioning facts that anybody can find by reconsidering his words.

Finally, even if we don't have a majority, I believe the official decision making process would lead to us choosing door 1 at the moment. We can make inquiries to the proper authorities if need be. I agree that a majority would be better, just to have a voting record, and to avoid last minute shenanigans. For that reason I will

vote: Door 1

[Thok]

Godwin looks a bit confused. His gun had disappeared, as did the prisoner he was carrying. And Death was nearby. "That can't be good" he thought.

I'm confused as to why Locke brought me here (even if he put me fifth): I'm pretty sure I mentioned that I didn't think it would be a good idea during the thread.

Based off of the above logic (which I agree with), if we trust the information elmo and CKD are giving us, then Mother would be best (no chance of bad, 50% chance of good) and Maiden would be worst. So it's a really question of how much we trust the information.

[Thok]

Posting here mostly to avoid picking up a second strike. Apparently I misunderstood how weekends were handled in the rules. (Yes, I've also been lazy.)

I see Mr. Odbody has had a change of heart. Do you have any news of the outside world?

I've taken a little bit of time to think about the scenario. It seems to me that Locke's information is more likely to be trustworthy than the original Odbody's, just because I don't think he would have the skill to come up with that clue as quickly as he did. Basically, if Locke is lying, than there has to be a big conspiracy that I think must involve the original Odbody also.

(Incidentally, if I am correct, there are 6 scenarios, and both Locke and Odbody eliminate two of them with their words.)

[Thok]

Another useless post from me: I'm roughly 22 hours into my annual Yom Kippur fast.

Godwin wonders why those words came out, but figures they have something to do about that strange concept known as real life and not anything to do with the game.

[Thok]

I've not so much been ignoring the game as worried about other stuff. I'm not even going to respond to arguments about what my lurking means because I've lurked as both town and scum, and it would be pointless for to comment on it.

I slightly disagree with your assessment of the Locke-lied/Obdody told the truth scenario: in that situation Mother is Good/Good/Neutral/Neutral, while Maiden and Crone are both Bad/Bad/Neutral/Good. That said, I have a hard time believing that Locke lied without both Locke and Odbody lying, given the wording of their clues.

I think the real question with our decision today is how likely we think Odbody is town, as in that case Mother is the right pick, and if Odbody is scum we're stuck with a decent amount of WIFOM.

I do think the case against Odbody is much weaker than the case against Locke (and yes, I do realize that it's pointless for me to say this now that Odbody is offscreen and likely close to lynch): I'm not entirely convinced Odbody would have effectively given himself up On Screen Day 2 unless the various points from On Screen contests are more important than we think they are. Your percentages suggest that you actually feel somewhat similar.

Apologies for including flavor. I mostly think it's pointless also, and I say this despite doing some silly acting On-Screen scene 2. [To be fair, I think it was obvious that my acting was acting and not game relevant.] It's especially bad this scene, since there are three players that can reasonably referred to as Angel. Tabris's acting annoys me in particular, both because it obfuscates what's that hydra is trying to say and also because I've seen all of Neogenesis Evangalion and feel the portrayal of Tabris is horrible.

[Thok]

I'm confused by DEATH's game. Are you trying to say that I have a halo over me, and that I'm an angel of goodness, or a noose over me, and that you want me lynched?

Also, how certain are you that Odbody will turn up scum? There's a certain amount of difference between his behavior and KY Krew: it's possible that Odbody is a townie playing somewhat stupidly, and that wasn't a plausible explanation for Ky Krew's jumble of misleading statements.

[Thok]

The sudden rush to Crone is fairly disturbing.

Count de Morcerf, DEATH, how certain do you think it is that Odbody was scum, and how likely do you think he was to lie if he was scum? As I said before, there's a big difference between his posts and that of the Scientologist we caught: I can see a scenario where Odbody was playing very poorly but was trying to help us, why KY Krew's comments were contradictory and his actions were blatantly evil.

[Thok]

Looking at what you've said hewitt, you were favoring mother until a certain "dream" happened (what is that? I hate this sort of role acting that only obfuscates things.) And then you've changed your mind to crone.

So, unless I have some knowledge of what this dream was (which several others have claimed to seen, but I haven't), I can't really see how or why it should affect my decision.

[Thok]

Why should I (or you, or anybody) trust Carrie Fisher to tell us what to do (in my case, add that I don't know what Carrie Fisher said, except it seems to have encouraged you and I guess others to vote Crone)?

[Thok]

Odbody, you've been quiet for most of the game. Should we push the button or not push the button?

(I realize I've been quiet also. If people want me to venture a guess at the decision, I will.)

[Thok]

I would prefer not to push the button at this instant.

In an aside, Godwin notes that a loud noisy button such as that could alert the FBI and the Mexican police to his whereabouts, and he already had issues with that Judge noticing him in previous scenes.

[Thok]

It almost certainly wrong to think of the current decision as being random. There's a good choice and a bad choice, and those who are evil will prefer the bad choice and we have been told that those who are evil know what each choice does.

I've heard stories of a game called Mafia, where they vote on who they think are good and evil. There is a lot of discussion about how to handle the first day of the game, when people are confused and nobody's said anything. That scenario isn't so different from what is happening now. Even better, we actually have some knowledge based off of how people have reacted to previous events; you can take a look at how those you think are evil are acting and try to use that to affect your choice.

[Thok]

Blind group think lead to us choosing the wrong decision in the last scene. I can't imagine that it's a good idea for this scene and I feel Tabris's scheme would lead to that.

(On the side note, I'm annoyed that Tabris keeps using the word "decepticons". None of Megatron, Starscream, Shockwave, Soundwave, or Destructor are in this game [unless there are some really weird role names], and it's stupid to use decepticons as a euphemism.)

[Thok]

Treating the fence sitters the same ignores that Valentine hasn't said a word today. In contrast, Dweezil and Tabris have said some, but have not given a direct opinion on the button. (Dweezil claims to distrust some of those who originally wanted to push the button, and Tabris distrusts those who don't want to push the button, which suggests which way they lean, but is not conclusive.)

I'm not playing Tabris's game. I've already said why I think it's a bad idea.

Carrie, what do either of your personalities think of the current discussion?

[Thok]

Tabris, I've said that I'm not touching your list. I like the idea that each player should give some feel for who is scummy and how their behavior affects their choice, but we are much better off having that data compiled separately by each player than in one giant list.

Still happy with not pushing the button, given how people are trying to characterize my behavior today as evil.

[Thok]

Carrie, when I asked you about what you thought about the discussion, I didn't just want to hear about who you felt was suspicious among the on stage people. Given your rather vocal nature, I think such a list only helps the new Valentine; everybody else knows who you want to lynch because you've repeatedly said it.

What would be more useful is what you think of the discussion and how that is affecting your decision, and if there are points of view that you support or disagree with. At the very least, you might have some insight that the rest of us have missed.

Finally.

Psuedovote: Don't push the button

[Thok]

Carrie, I'm a bit confused by what you want from that post then. Is it an order you want people to reveal their preferences in?

Valentine, there are five known roles that have rotated among various people. The stuntsman can replace an actor who is on-stage, the assistant producer has some control over who comes on stage, the music and video assistants can send us messages via music or picture (respectively) and the director can hire people to take the other four roles.

All of this will be more obvious when you read stuff off-stage. You were asked to join us at a difficult time.

[Thok]

So, a quick check shows that we're only going to be wondering out here for four more days, and it feels like there is no sense of urgency to make a decision. Everybody needs to make at least a pseudovote; don't feel such a vote locks you in if more info comes up but we need to pretend to make progress.

(It's possible that there are other people who also need a sense of urgency as well.)

[Thok]

Dweezil, I'd rather there is active discussion now, even before the Bat-Signal comes, then a rush to judgement in 24 hours after we've all been silent. As I mentioned, people need not be locked into their votes and can changed their mind after seeing how others act. But without any action, there is no reaction.

Also, if I light a fire under our group, maybe the people responsible for the signal will also motivate themselves. The lack of a signal suggests that they have also been quiet or indecisive. (It's possible that they are waiting for a role to be assigned; they may need to start worrying about that role being empty for a while, given that it has yet to be filled.)

[Thok]

I'm confused by Carrie's apparent reasoning. (Apparent, because Carrie hasn't really given us anything really concrete.) It seems to be something like "I find Godwin and Angel scummy, and therefore I'll vote with them", except that Angel and I are no longer voting together. I can see ways that might work, but on it's own it feels weird.

I find Tabris and Odbody more reasonable people to base my vote off of (in the sense that I don't think it is a good idea for my choice to resemble either of their choices.)

Vote: Don't push the button

[Thok]

Tabris, it should be clear that my original choice was random, and that my consolidation on that choice was based on how others in the game have reacted to the events of today.

Carrie's recent comments look like bad logic to me. Of course, they look like Carrie's particular brand of bad logic, so I ought to give Carrie points for consistency. Or something. I sort of wish Carrie's more feminine half would comment on events, if she is around. (I'm assuming that most of the posts have been from Carrie's masculine half.)

[Thok]

It's mostly Tabris, to be honest. If you notice, she started repeating the whole "I am scum" thing in 598 and 600, at a point where it was clear my "Don't push the button" choice was still random, and that in fact most choices were random. Her subsequent list of scum also put me at top. It feels like an attempt to use me to scare people away from "Don't push the button" when we were still in what would likely be the random stage.

Tabris also seems to be using you as a way to move the vote, until you switched your vote (and even then, Tabris didn't notice that at first.)

Tabris is also noticeable for the issues Mr. Green brought up.

@Huey Lewis, I doubt that those other people have a preference or more information than us. (If they did, music would be a better way to present it, as it is trivial to find songs titled "Push it" or "Don't push".)

[Thok]

Just for the record, I'm going to be keeping my vote in Condorcet only form for the rest of the day unless people decide there's an important reason to hammer. At deadline the two versions are indistinguishable, and the Condorcet form prevents a premature hammer.

If you aren't voting but have a clear preference, there's no reason to not have at least a Condorcet vote out.

Also, a tie is bad for town (it will automatically give the worse of the two options, according to the rules our hosts have provided.)

[Thok]

If you are paying attention, you'll notice that the list of Condorcet votes corresponds directly to the player list of the first post. So the order

Angel, played by Gaspar
Carrie Fisher, played by Talilan
Clarence Odbody, played by PookyTheMagicalBear
Dweezil Zappa, played by Mighty Orbots
Glen Stewart Godwin, played by Thok
Huey Lewis, played by StarKiss
Mr. Green, played by sottyrulez
Tabris, played by GoofballsAndBaloons
Valentine Wiggin, played by zu_Faul

corresponds to the order of Condorcet votes. I'm listed fifth, and that's where my Condorcet vote is on every vote count.

At deadline, first we check if there is a majority for one decision. That means we need 5 votes (no less will do). Otherwise they compare the Condorcet votes and see which one has the most votes head to head. In a two way competition at the deadline, it does not matter whether my vote is a vote or a Condorcet (as long as I make a preference); it will be counted either way.

In fact, if you were paying attention, despite my not having an "official" vote, my Condorcet vote was what made there not be a Condorcet winner in the last vote count.

But since people actually want a vote for the record.

vote: Don't Push the Button

, Push the button

[Thok]

I agree that CKD needs to be fired immediately. Along with the lack of communication, I've now been involved in four bizarre choices in a row, and I think everybody who offered an opinion didn't want me in this adventure.

No vote yet: Dweezil should post his information immediately.

Also, is it worth speculating why Dweezil was made the advocate?

Finally, as I've mentioned before, starting an hour or three from now I'm going to be missing for a day; if you don't hear me speak for a day, that's why.

[Thok]

Even if DEATH can stunt off-stage, it's unclear that it's a good idea. Who would we want DEATH to stunt in for, taking into account that about half of off-stage could reasonably be the lynch favorite?

Also, I'm vaguely worried about this being too easy, but there doesn't seem to be an argument for anything other than the obvious vote.

Vote: Tequila, [Buttery Nipple, Vodka]

[Thok]

Mr. Green, we can always communicate with the other side just by speaking. They can hear what we have to say no matter what, since they've got that one way mirror over there.

Godwin points at what appears to be a mirror on the fourth wall of the bar. Surprisingly, neither the fourth wall nor the mirror breaks.

If we are to switch out DEATH, it's because we are interested in what the other side has to say to us, and it's unclear the benefits outweigh the risks.

[Thok]

I am back from my trip.

It occurred to me when I was traveling that Talilan could potentially use his ability to fire the CKD as a means of informing us that a lynch had occurred off-screen.

[Thok]

Could people either agree or point out flaws in my "Talilan fires CKD to signal that they've just lynched somebody" plan? I tend to believe Talilan will ignore everything I say, so I think having others comment on that is useful.

Also, Valentine, how is your review of past events coming along?

[Thok]

DEATH, I'm not saying that CKD needs to be fired immediately, but rather that we should use his (hopefully inevitable) firing as a signal to let us know when to proceed. Basically, while I like bars and ladies nights, I'm hoping to use this to speed up our stay here a little bit if those not present make a decision before our stay would naturally end. If not, we wait for them to make a decision, and in the worst case we wait the entire two weeks and hit on girls in the bar or something.

[Thok]

The last (and only) time a director was fired, it was announced on stage soon after it happened in roughly the 183rd time somebody spoke.

A nearby drinker starts to say something about how Mr. Godwin could know that number precisely, but decides to just continue sipping her drink instead.

Granted, both relevant people were present when the announcement was made.

[Thok]

Mr. Jones, I'd want to hear if Locke has anything to say first, but I would be in favor of his lynch.

Godwin takes a nibble on some of the bar food. He's not one to pass up free pretzels, peanuts, or goldfish. Pepperidge Farm Goldfish, not the actual goldfish goldfish. What sort of bar would serve real goldfish anyways?

[Thok]

Glen Stewart Godwin notices a dartboard, and starts to throw some darts at it. He's not particular good or bad at darts, and the game is rather boring. But there's a relative lack of other things to do. At least it seems like this happy hour will only last for another week or so.

(For the record, I would like to hear how Valentine/ZuFaul is getting along, and if he has any questions or anything.)

[Thok]

Hey Valentine, do you remember the details for the next event? If we've got nothing else better to do, we can try to come up with a strategy for that game, as it seemed rather complicated. (We don't have Angel here to help us think of a plan, but I think Kelly and I can make a decent attempt at it: others can join in also.)

[Thok]

If you use the power of stunting now, I believe from previous experience that the Director can choose the new Stuntman after the next scene starts, which means we can avoid the mess that we had this scene; the Stuntman could be chosen to be off-stage.

DEATH, I'm happy with you stunting with either Gaspar or Talilan (this is mostly process of elimination, as I feel either of them is more capable of reporting on the issues than others; Starkiss would probably be third on my list.)

[Thok]

Putting the stuntman on-stage is clearly not beneficial to town anyways, and is something that we should ask CKD about.

I'm not sad to see Pooky go, given his performance in on-screen choices.

Even if we decided against Tequila, we'd still have to make a choice between Buttery Nipple and Vodka in roughly 3 days, with no information and little discussion about which way to go. I'd rather go with choosing Tequila and lynching Orbots if Tequila turns up bad than trying to deal with that debate.

[Thok]

We're just waiting for Kelly and Valentine. (I had been holding back my vote for the last hour or so for roughly the reason you just gave.)

[Thok]

SL, your plan fails if {1,2,3,4,5} contains multiple very goods and 6 isn't very good.

[Thok]

Incidentally, I do agree with the idea that we should use random numbers when picking our sets.

Also, if {1,2,3,4,5} doesn't contain a very good, we know that the 64 element set {6, 7, ..., 69} contains at least one very good (in fact any 64 element set contains at least 4 very goods, no matter what). We can use the remaining 6 questions to chop that set in half repeatedly (basically ask does {1,2,3,4,5}+half of the remaining numbers contain a very good, if yes keep that set, if no take the other half), and that gives us a very good in 7 questions assuming a no on the first step. Of course, that variation is very prone to scum lies.

[Thok]

That's why I pointed out my version if the first question gives us no very goods: if we know that {1,2,3,4,5} don't have a very good, then then we can ask questions like "Does {1,2,3,4,5,18,19} contain a very good?" and it's the same as asking if {18,19} contains a very good, but with a set of the right size.

[Thok]

No, because we still have to deal with the case of {1,2,3,4,5} having a very good (SL's version doesn't work for the reason I gave.)

Plus the "if there's no liars" is a fairly big if.

[Thok]

The obvious 7th question would be "Does {1,2,3,4,5} contain exactly 1 very good?". If it does, then we can choose 6 safely, if not we bite the bullet and pick one of {1,2,3,4,5} randomly, with at least a 2/5 chance of succeeding.

The odds of {1,2,3,4,5} having exactly 1 very good is (I believe) 5(70c14)/(75c15)=5*60*59*58*57*15/75*74*73*72*71=42%. So 100%-42%-32%=26% chance the set contains at least 2 very goods. Roughly 8/10 of that 26% (actually less, but I'm lazy) 6 is less than very good, although we're probably happy with the extra 2/10 when it's good also.

(You can compute the probability of {1,2,3,4,5} having exactly k very goods as (5 C k)(70 C 15-k)/(75 C k). For a given k the probability of 6 not being very good is the obvious (70-[15-k])/70=(55+k)/70. Now sum over all k, if you want. I'm lazy, especially because most of the probabilities will be small.)

[Thok]

If the only answer we get is the result of the final choice and the claimed answers, it's hard to imagine how well you can catch liars, especially in the eliminate all choices plan.

I'm OK with SL's plan. I think with another month it could be improved, but we obviously don't have a month.

Who wants to pick an order in which we answer questions? And how are we choosing random numbers, given that we're not allowed to visibly roll dice?

"Lousy anti-gambling laws," Godwin thinks to himself. "Even in prison they let us play blackjack."

[Thok]

I don't like lists like this, as I've mentioned in previous scenes, but I see the need for it here. I'm including off-stage people since I haven't given any sort of true condorcet since scene 1. If I did a Condorcet, dashed lines would indicate people who would be in the same set of parentheses on a first take.

Town
Me
-----
{Zufaul, Thesp, sottyrulez would fit in this area}
Shadow Lurker
Mighty Orbots
------
hewitt
{starkiss}
VP Baltar
-----
Talilan
Goofballs
-----
{CKD}
Scum

[Thok]

Talilan, when I made the suggestion, we were three days into the scene. It was unlikely that you had lynched by then.

Also, I got that thought while I was V/LA and posted it when I got back.

Also, my suggestion was meant to speed things up. If you had already lynched CKD, then we would just be forced to wait the two weeks (and I think I said that later when commenting about my suggestion.)

I believe other people asked why you hadn't fired CKD by that point as well. I would need to check.

(I will also admit to seeing hewitt's post on-stage, where he made some comments about Gaspar, in a way that suggested that a lynch had not happened yet. I don't remember the exact timing of that post with respect to my comments.)

[Thok]

I'm utterly confused about what your point is. You seem to be claiming that the fact that I didn't bring up the possibility that CKD was already lynched as evidence that I knew CKD had not been lynched, rather than me not going over every single detail in the plan. (My plan actually works if CKD was still alive at the time and you wanted to lynch him: you fire him at lynch-1 once everybody has agreed on the lynch, then lynch him once the message appears on screen.)

My plan also could potentially fail if you had been or were going to be the lynch. Is that evidence that I knew you weren't going to be lynched, or just me not mentioning every single detail?

[Thok]

Compiling the lists into a mixed thing. 7=most town, 1=least town. Goofballs listed SL and VP Baltar as a tie, so they get a 3.5. Similarly the 5.5 from a Talilan tie.

Hewitt 1+1+1+4+7+2+1=17
Thok 3+2+2+7+2+1+3=20
Goofballs 4+7+3+1+1+5.5+2=23.5
Talilan 2+5+5+2+5+7+4=30
Vp Baltar 7+3.5+4+3+6+5.5+5=34
Might Orbots 5+6+7+5+3+3+6=35
ShadowLurker 6+3.5+6+6+4+4+7=36.5

(So, that's most trusted to least trusted, for what it's worth. Feel free to analyze it as you may.)

[Thok]

Goofballs (or her husband), seems to be suggesting a Hamming Code based solution. There isn't anything in her solution that requires her (or anybody) to go last, just that the people follow instructions. [I agree with her assessment that her plan works unless we get unlucky with numbers.]

I'd be happier with her plan if she discussed it before Shadowlurker asked a question, and before SL posted a list of random numbers.

[Thok]

"SL didn't ask the question yet, merely said that he WILL ask the question. "

He said he will be asking the question NOW. That implied that he had sent in the PM. (It is possible that SL can delete the PM he has sent before Mr. Grey has a chance to respond, after seeing your question. It's not something I'd stake this decision on.)

"Any list of random numbers is worth any other list of random numbers."

Only if you make a plan before suggesting the numbers, otherwise you can shift the plan to take advantage of the numbers.

[Thok]

Sigh. Goofballs, we did have a plan that was established. There was no reason not to bring up you counter plan before we started.

Also, rereading your original plan it's clear I've misunderstood it. It actually fails in lots of cases; if in your example 74, 18, 63, 34 were all very goods, then we'd get a yes answer to every question. This would also happen if 14, 52,47, 5 were very good. Those two sets don't have any overlap. (I think I can find a lot of other sets of very good that work.)

It's clear we've got a lot of freedom given SL's answer. Just pick a plan and make it work.

[Thok]

4 very goods in a set of 17 numbers (which is all that my examples require) isn't excessive. The average amount is 17/5=3.4.

I want a solution to the problem that actually tells me what number to pick once I get the answers. The divide by two method flat out says "This is the number that is a very good" once we ask the six questions. Your method doesn't seem to do that even if we get yes in some of the seven questions, which means the failure rate is more than the 1% you proposed.

Basically, it's the same flaw as I pointed out in ShadowLurker's original proposal.

What we should do is the following:

Take a set of size 2^n., where n<=6. For half of the set, ask whether or not it contains a very good. If it does, we keep that half of the set, if not take the other half of the set. Repeat n times. At the end, we have a very good as long as the original set contained one, and we can use the remaining 6-n questions to test for accuracy.

If we take n=6, we have a guaranteed chance of find a very good in the set of size 64, but we have no test for accuracy.

If we take n=5, we have a slightly smaller chance of finding a very good in a set of size 32, but have one questions for checking accuracy.

[Thok]

I'm OK with ShadowLurker's plan. It's essentially what I described in post 1018 for n=3 (with some extra provisions if we don't get a very good early on in the process.) Whether n=3 is the best choice is another question, but it's irrelevant if the question has already been asked.

[Thok]

Would we better off having a more suspicious person ask a question now, when there are plenty of extra questions we can use for testing? (According to my chart that would be one of hewitt/me/Goofballs. I think you people are wrong-headed to have me as suspicious as you do, but whatever.)

[Thok]

So we should probably prepare the next question now (but only one question ahead.) Basically, I want to make sure we keep things moving so we actually ask all 7 of our questions.

Obviously, don't ask this until VP Baltar gives an answer.

I assume the plan is something like this:

If the answer to VP Baltar's question is yes, have one of me/DGB/hewitt ask about {74, 14, 39, 23, 51, 18, 52}

If the answer is no, Talilan asks about {74, 14, 39, 23, 51, 63, 47, 66, 20} (Town is saving Mighty Orbots to go last to check on people and Talilan is considered by our group to be the most trustworthy of the remaining four question askers.)

(I don't necessarily agree with some of the above decisions, but whatever.)

[Thok]

I'm very much tempted to just say read the last 4 pages of the thread. But for specifics:

I don't agree that you're more trustworthy than me (but that's our group being stupid, IMHO, and unless we have really bad luck there's enough safeguards in check. Actually, looking at the lists I'd be tempted to ask why hewitt and Mighty Orbots have me much less trustworthy than you; I can see why you and Goofballs would have your relative placings of the two of us.)

I also think that working with groups of 4 may be too small. Groups of 8 is probably better, but I should have pushed this issue in post 1027. (I feel that what we lose in being able to test people we gain back in being able to test more numbers.) I don't know if that makes it worth expanding the yes question to have 8 numbers rather than 4 in the next go around.

Also, Goofballs comments sort of make me want to rerandomize (specifically that she posted a plan after the numbers came out.) Nobody else seems to care about this.

Preview Edit: Most of this was written before VP Baltar returned with the answer to the question. I haven't changed anything since seeing his comment.

[Thok]

"And what makes you think that SL's list was not random?

You think I'm going to trust a list made by a possible non-townie over a list provided by SL, the towniest player on this mothaf__in' boat????"

I believe that SL's list is random. I'm worried that you tried to tailor a plan to take advantage of the list of numbers that SL posted. That doesn't require me to say anything about SL's townieness or scumminess.

[Thok]

"Well, given considerable bias, I don't see why you'd think I'm more trustworthy than you in your own eyes. That doesn't even make sense. "

I was referring to Talilan (your post came in the middle of that discussion), who as a consensus town thinks is more trustworthy than me. (Your list has us as roughly equal, as does SL., at least by rank; there could be a big gap in actually perceived scumminess.)

"How could tabris talor a plan around a random list when we are going sequentially down the line?"

Obviously, she wouldn't give a plan involving going sequentially down the line if SL's numbers had a large number of very good's in them early on and she was scum. (Or, she could give a plan where we wouldn't be able to determine the placement of the very goods even once we asked our questions.)

"You are incredibly idiotic to even suggest that a set of random numbers would lend itself to one scheme or another, they are random - unless SL was stricken by an incredible stroke of bad luck, like the planets aligning during a solar eclipse."

They aren't random once they've been picked! Once we have a sequence, you can doctor a plan around it.

[Thok]

Or as I'll point out, there was an hour between Goofballs' 992 and 993 (both of which come after SL posted his list of numbers), which gives her plenty of time to set up a proposal for a plan.

[Thok]

Shadowlurker, we've already asked about 14 twice.

[Thok]

Shadow Lurker, Locke is the likely lynch and is very likely scum. Switching with him is poor play.

Talilan should be asking about either {74, 14, 39, 23, 51, 63, 47, 66, 20} or {74, 14, 39, 23, 51, 63, 47, 66, 20, 34, 5, 56, 41}, if we're not changing the plan.

[Thok]

Talilan, given that Thanksgiving is going to be hitting the U.S. this week, it's more important that you do something so we don't run out of time then it is to have a 100% absolutely perfect plan.

[Thok]

So next up is Goofballs, right? VP Baltar can overrule me if he wants somebody else to go.

She should be asking about {74, 14, 39, 23, 51} plus four of {63, 47, 66, 20, 34, 5, 56, 41}. I assume we want {63,47,66,20} as the group of four, but that can be debated.

[Thok]

Goofballs, you do understand how the plan works, right? Even if I pick a set of four numbers out of {63, 47, 66, 20, 34, 5, 56, 41}, it doesn't matter because we get a very good in three questions (with a bonus question to test stuff.)

(Also, I actually let the choice of which four numbers get picked be up to debate: my specific selection of four was based off of ShadowLurker's original list.)

[Thok]

I assume that I'm next, and that I should be asking about {74, 14, 39, 23, 51, 34, 5}

I'll give about 15 minutes for people to post complaints, suggestions or whatever and then I'll submit the question.

[Thok]

Yeah, you've got it right. Submitting {74, 14, 39, 23, 51, 34, 5} to Mr. Grey now.

[Thok]

Sigh. I've deleted my question from the outbox. What is your concern?

[Thok]

I'd like to submit my question soon, so that hewitt/Mighty Orbots have a chance to submit their questions as well. We've only got until Saturday.

[Thok]

OK then, I've submitted my question, does {74, 14, 39, 23, 51, 34, 5} contain a very good.

[Thok]

Both of them are Locke: one is the John Locke from Lost, and one is the economist John Locke.

Or at least that's my interpretation of it.

[Thok]

Does {74, 14, 39, 23, 51, 34, 5} contain a very good? Mr. Grey says no.

Hewitt is up next. He should ask about {74, 14, 39, 23, 51, 56} unless there are any objections or we think there is a rush for time.

[Thok]

Sorry, I've been sort of out of it the last couple of days. I'm leaving my vote as a Condorcet unless people want to ask me or others about stuff.

Vote: 41, everything else

[Thok]

Troll also thanks Papa Zito for putting up with Troll as a partner even when Troll stormed out of the game due to control issues Troll had as part of the scum team. Troll thanks the rest of the scum team as well but Papa Zito in particular as him was the one that had to bear most of the burden of Troll for the remainder of the game.

Do we want to talk about the real reason for you leaving? It will be obvious if the scum QT is posted, and I think the entire scum team is in a better place to talk about it now that we've won.

-------
Part of the reason we were willing to quick-lynch SL is that SL made it obvious he was Sottyrulez's mason partner (there's a post where he makes a scum list and lists Sottyrulez in his own category, and he later confirmed that on-scene.)

Scum very much thought that CKD was the mafia traitor once he claimed SMG until he turned up innocent, which affected our play a lot. (I think there was even an SMG=Sarah Michelle Geller theory at work.)

Oh, and I was the only one who lied about the lotto numbers. 5 was the only very good in the final pile of 8.

(Finally, I need to hunt down my Spot avatar. And possibly make a post about the Return of the Spot in GD.)

[Thok]

Troll has no troubles talking about the reason Troll left if people would like. Troll assumes the scum quick topic will be shared and people will see it then. Well, at least if them can stand to read through the 1500ish posts there.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

To be fair, part of reason for bringing it up is that the issues that caused you to leave lead to a second conflict within the mafia team.

Oh, a quick question for mith; what were you expecting from the various on-screen performances? (Scene 6 in particular is obviously interesting.)

[Thok]

I'm amazed we got anywhere near this point really given the absolute meltdown the scum team had, really.

Yeah. Right around day 6 (when Goofballs posted her plan for that scene), the scum team essentially stopped posting in the quicktopic. We got back together around when I was asking my question, and then CKD turned up town and Starkiss turned up scum and day 7 was obviously much happier (and much shorter) for the scum team.

[Thok]

I do agree with this - but when? The only time I can point to is scene 5(?) when I went hard after curiouskarmadog, which feels a little silly right now. I don't think Gaspar should have been lynched, but if I remember, scum largely controlled that as well. It felt like the town had very little room for error - scum would be able to control or largely influence at least one half of the game, and the other half would be more of a crapshoot.

My general feeling about the Glork/Yos2 lynches is that they shouldn't have been pressured, but once pressured they made mistakes that made their lynches inevitable. I'd argue that CKD should have been lynched Day 2 or 3.

This was a weird game, as a lot of town players (and a lot of good town players) made fairly obvious mistakes. I'm sort of curious why Glork thought it was a good idea to imitate my play from Kingmaker 1 with respect to the AP. (Incidentally, I'd argue that Panzer played the AP part of his role well until he was forcibly replaced; scum didn't have him as a likely AP candidate.)

I also feel like people got caught up too much in the on-screen stuff, both with the acting and the trying to win points.

Finally, I'm still not sure how you're supposed to role play Glen Stewart Godwin.

[Thok]

I also don't think I ever directly advocated inciting modkill through inactivity, I merely placed it on the table.

Not that scum could actually mention this, but the following rule is relevant.

9. If you are modkilled for breaking the rules of the game, you lose.

In particular, deliberately getting modkilled in this game is by definition going against your win condition.

I do think mith should have made a brief post in the game reminding people of this; when I sent him a PM about this issue, he reminded us of this rule and told us he wasn't going to interfere, but it's not like scum could reasonably make an argument defending a person who was "clearly" going to be die and turn up scum no matter what we did. ("Clearly" because our perception was reasonable; mith may suggest otherwise, but there wasn't that much difference between CKD's play in this game and Commodore Amazing's play in Verbose Mafia 2.)

Agreed. We screwed up on the choices for the last scene so I'm very sorry about that.

Of the mistakes that you made, the choice of who to put in scene 7 was minor; a real mistake would have been putting Starkiss/Shadowlurker/(Exactly one of me/Goofballs) offstage. Town was never going to get more than two of the following four things (a cop, Zufaul in endgame, SL in endgame, learning both Goofballs and me were scum)

[Thok]

Getting two of those in endgame would have been more than sufficent to win for the town if you ask me.

You got two of those in the endgame (Zufaul in endgame and learning both me and Goofballs were both scum.)

[Thok]

Can I point out a lurker hunt would've netted us 3/5 of the scum (Thok, Pooky, StarKiss)?

You do realize that I have more combined posts in the two threads than you, right?

[Thok]

Zachrulz could possibly improve at mafia by learning to distinguish "acting" from real feelings.

There's a matter of knowing your audience; I'm not sure that ortolan has the reputation (and possibly the skill, but that's a separate argument) to justify letting him get away with something that looked counterproductive to town. (Says a person who has only played one game with ortolan and who was part of the informed minority, so take my words with a grain of salt.)

Both the day 1 attacks on Talilan and the Elmosaurian lynch came from the same line of thought; that somebody did something onstage that was obviously not helpful to town, and thus was scum. Nobody put in the effort to observe that scum would be afraid to take that position for similar reasons.

[Thok]

by the way I really liked the MrJellyLee hydra, they were really horribly obv-town

pity they got killed so early

You act like there wasn't a correlation between those statements.