mith (66) wrote:It's not an answer to "why hammer player X?".
Hammering me won't make it less likely that we are scum together - it would make it an absolute certainty
because I would be a dead townie
. It would eliminate absolutely nothing for tomorrow.
You claiming this means nothing to us though, we have no knowledge of your alignment.
Can I just get to the bottom of this- Empking are you drawing this from another game involving SensFan? What was the plan? To simply pair up people randomly and see if one would hammer the other (under the assumption scum wouldn't hammer their partner, which I guess works). Is this supposed to slightly increase our chances of winning to 2/3 or something?
sekinj (71) wrote:
@mith - you are being clear. The problem is emp. he always plays like this. no matter how much you explain yourself he always fails to understand and answer accordingly. I don't know why or if it is intentional or accidental. It seemed very intentional the first time I played with him, but since he always does it no matter what game he is in *shrug*. that is his MO. You can find many players who will not play a game with emp because of it.
Correctamundo.
mith (73) wrote:Everyone else: I would find it informative at this point for everyone to post a list of pairings (most to least likely) and suspects (most to least scummy) - doesn't have to be exhaustive, and while more reasoning = better, just a list will do for now if that's all you have time for. I'll suggest sekinj start, since he has two votes, and then choose the next to post their list popcorn style.
Why is this useful in this setup (mainly genuine question)? It is usually considered anti-town to post lists such as these.
mith, I agree with your post 69 btw, but I'm interested in the theory behind the original system of pairings which Empking is attempting to apply to this game, albeit apparently in the wrong way.
mith (86) wrote:Empking, as I have already said, it makes us being scum together less likely only because
it completely rules it out as a possibility when I come up innocent
.
I don't know why you keep saying this. It's 100% WIFOM and won't become anything else the more times you say it.
mith (88) wrote:I find it highly unlikely I will be.
I don't see why. While you certainly don't come out of the argument with Empking looking bad, he's quite the easy target.
sekinj (93) wrote:Empking wrote:sekinj wrote:but your plan does not accomplish your goal.
Out of 100, how likely do you think that me and Mith are scumbuddies.
BTW Town, I'd like to point out that Sekinj has been defending Mith all game.
50%
or more liek I've been dis-agreeing with you. and no one else has been taking either side, so it doesn't matter.
I agree with mith's later expression that I dislike this misapplication of probability (not that it's scummy because it's clear you don't mean it in a purely probabilistic sense, I just think it's useless and confusing/misleading).
mith (99) wrote:To restate my argument once again: Causing the lynch of someone you don't suspect makes it less likely the D1 lynch is successful, and does nothing for the town D2. That's a negative impact on our chances of winning.
This is true.
zwet (106) wrote:Your statistics ARE fabricated. You can't claim that there's a fifty fifty chance of someone being scum unless it's a four player game.
This is clearly an unreasonable attack as per above. It's clear what she means at least even if it is annoying.
mith (99) wrote:sekinj, I don't care whether you're sure or not; I want you to make a list that is your best guess at this time. I'm trying to pin the scum to something to catch them in an incosistency later, or to get them to give something away about who they are scum with - such a limited response limits our read on you.
I believe the usual problems with these lists are
1) they are a way of faking activity (not really relevant this game)
2) people can spin what you say any way they like really anyway (can say you were busing or buddy up to your "scumbuddy" after they die. It's better simply to use the straightforward device of pressure, or so the argument goes.
Plum (113) wrote:The problem with Zwets is that I don't think it's humanly possible to get a read on him. Has anyone ever actually seen the guy flip scum? I haven't, but I have seen lots of townie sketchyness . . .
Heya, Ort!
What?
Plum (113) wrote:Emp/Ort: 7.5 or so. Ort literally doesn't take a stance, saying it's night impossible to distinguish town-Emp from scum-Emp. The only problem is that from my point-of-view, there's no known way of distinguishing town-Zwets from scum-Zwets . . . meh. Don't know if the guy even has a scum meta. It's possible Zwets is being more quiet than his wont, but that may be because this game is smaller and running at a somewhat slower pace than many of the games Zwets plays.
[/ramble]
Um yes, it's hard to read when either are scum.
Plum (113) wrote:@ Ort - dude, you seem to call me out on not taking a strong stance on Emp/mith earlier but don't really end up taking a strong one yourself (you say Emp's plan is 'useless' but don't commit to a read on his alignment).
Um...yes? That is correct and results from my strong awareness of how he behaves in every game.
None of the justifications Plum has given for placing me prominently in her standings make sense (I am greater than standard likelihood for being paired with Empking [by a huge amount], zwet and sekinj.
zwet (124) wrote:Mith, however, has an urge to try to reason and argue with him, which he ALREADY KNOWS is useless to do. I'm not sure if he's trying to prove that he's being objective with him, but if that's the case I find it an uncalled for attempt to look more townish.
I would agree with this but I don't believe mith has played with him previously and I haven't played with mith previously so it's a bit hard to be sure of this at this point.
zwet (126) wrote:Yes, I believe she fabricated the percentages.
This is getting scummy now.
mith (132) wrote:I totally disagree that arguing with him has been useless. (I also like it when people suggest that I "already know" something which I in fact disagree with.) I've been attempting to determine whether he actually thought his "plan" was a good idea for a pro-town player (somewhat successful: I do now think he believes that, whatever his alignment)
This is a huge about-face. What is your explanation?