Mini 408 - EXiLE Mafia, MOD ABANDONED

[Romanus]

The graph is evidence, one more piece of evidence, not conclusive, but still evidence. Why would anyone want us to simply ignore the chart. Unless, of course, it is saying something they don't want it to say.

[Cheesefan]

By not evidence i mean not concrete evidence.

[Romanus]

It IS, IS, IS concrete evidence.


American Heritage Dictionary: evidence--
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.


The chart is helpful. I'm now done talking about this.

[Cheesefan]

Kevins half assed definition of concrete evidence:

Evidence that can single handedly allow you to come to a decision

Sorry for your confusion

[Skruffs]

JDodge : if we all vote for two people, and one of them is pro-town, teh mafia can kill that person, vote someone else, and that person (with two or three votes) will have a majority and will be nominated, because every other vote will be on thte other person. Obviously the two people who are 'being nominated', town or not, will not necessarily want to vote for themselves or each other, so that's a third element you have to deal with.

Jack: After everyone else posted their nominations, jodge had 5, rr and chz has 4, and i have 3. Fircoal nominated two people, as well. We found his finger in the ballot box, so OBVIOUSLY he did put in his nominations (tho why his finger was in there is beyound me). I am nominated with everyone else; so it stands to reason that he more likely than not nominated me.

Maz could have easily done that; maz nominated AND voted for me as the day started, i could probably try to find a way to suggest that maz lied and is trying to cover, but that is PURELY speculation.

Again, you are saying I'm assuming all kind of stuff, namely that the information is correct and that people aren't lying. I am saying that based on what people are saying, this is what I have concluded. You can't 'wifom' evidence away just because it's possible someone lied. Romanus 'came clean' about who he nominated, and you are suspicious of him for that.


cheesefan : I posted what people said, if you doubt the validity of that, talk to them, don't criticize me for reposting.

If you want me to post a basis on who I think is scummy, I think that ghyrt, yellow bounder, bunny, and dean are

acting

the most scummy. I don't know why I think CS isn't scummy considering he's kinda lurking (no offense meant).

I'm not really trying to throw suspicion on them, though, that's my opinion. IF you want I will post a longer person-by-person review tonight.

[Jack]

Jack: After everyone else posted their nominations, jodge had 5, rr and chz has 4, and i have 3. Fircoal nominated two people, as well. We found his finger in the ballot box, so OBVIOUSLY he did put in his nominations (tho why his finger was in there is beyound me). I am nominated with everyone else; so it stands to reason that he more likely than not nominated me.

This is circular reasoning though. You're using your nomination as evidence of how he voted. There's no way to prove how he voted, and going by the math he only had a 20% chance of nominating you.

Maz could have easily done that; maz nominated AND voted for me as the day started, i could probably try to find a way to suggest that maz lied and is trying to cover, but that is PURELY speculation.

Again, you are saying I'm assuming all kind of stuff, namely that the information is correct and that people aren't lying. I am saying that based on what people are saying, this is what I have concluded. You can't 'wifom' evidence away just because it's possible someone lied. Romanus 'came clean' about who he nominated, and you are suspicious of him for that.

It's a dangerous conclusion. My impression of maz is that he's scummy, so I'm thinking he lied. If your impression of him is that he isn't scummy you should provide your reasoning there. We can come back to the chart later.

I'm not really trying to throw suspicion on them, though, that's my opinion. IF you want I will post a longer person-by-person review tonight.

Cool.

[Skruffs]

You are asking me to provide a double negative on Maz; I can't really explain why he's

not

scummy, just like I can't really explain why Dodge is

not

scummy. I could conceivably say that Dodge was nominated by scum buddies so that he would not be a target later on. <.< Or I can say " wow he has a crap load of votes on him, what are the chances those are all coincidental?"

I don't see how it's circular reasoning. You are saying we can't prove he nominated me, and I agree. We can't prove it, but we also can't disprove it, and it's just basically a temporary band-aid until we find something better.

[Maz Medias]

Let me add an additional facet to my anti-nomination argument, which is certainly manifesting itself right now.

Focusing on nominations, rather than actual game play, will lead us into irrelevant, time-wasting, obscuring arguments out of which scum will pull rationales for mislynches.

[Ghyrt]

I'm not talking about 'every day' Dodge. this is just for today. I think claiming won't be important from now on, especially if we are going to be 'pre-deciding' who to nominate the night before. Why? Because if everyone votes for two people, and they are all townies, it is likely the cop will investigate one of them, and it's likely that scum can kill one of them and nominate someone else. On the other hand, if everyone votes for the same two people, why would scum have any reason to *not* vote for them? there's no way to know who voted who excepet in situations like today , where 4 people are nominted with 4/5 votes each.

Just look it over, chew on it a while, come to some conclusions and share them with everyone else.

Dang! This set-up really favors scum.

Anyway, your logic makes sense... sort of; but think about it this way:

1) If we nominate 2 people (which the town can easily force to happen) we get screwed as you explained.

2)If we try to nominate 3 people, then we have to delegate votes, and it would be very easy for scum to force a situation where 2 town get nominated. (See previous item)

3) If we try to nominate 4+ people, scum essentially picks who gets nominated.

The more nominations we make (or the more randomly we nominate), the higher chances scum have of choosing who gets nominated. The only way we can win (which kind of sucks), is if we vote on who is scummiest before night and make sure they get nominated. Even though option 1 is dangerous, its the only way we can be guaranteed (excepting power roles, of course) to lynch who we want. If we don't, scum will have better odds than town in getting who they want onto the block.

[JDodge]

Dang! This set-up really favors scum.

Anyway, your logic makes sense... sort of; but think about it this way:

1) If we nominate 2 people (which the town can easily force to happen) we get screwed as you explained.

2)If we try to nominate 3 people, then we have to delegate votes, and it would be very easy for scum to force a situation where 2 town get nominated. (See previous item)

3) If we try to nominate 4+ people, scum essentially picks who gets nominated.

The more nominations we make (or the more randomly we nominate), the higher chances scum have of choosing who gets nominated. The only way we can win (which kind of sucks), is if we vote on who is scummiest before night and make sure they get nominated. Even though option 1 is dangerous, its the only way we can be guaranteed (excepting power roles, of course) to lynch who we want. If we don't, scum will have better odds than town in getting who they want onto the block.

2 is a terrible choice. 3 is only slightly better.

I hate it when I'm wrong on things like this.

[Cheesefan]

is if we vote on who is scummiest before night and make sure they get nominated. Even though option 1 is dangerous, its the only way we can be guaranteed (excepting power roles, of course) to lynch who we want. If we don't, scum will have better odds than town in getting who they want onto the block.

No.

I will not be part of this system.

It gives scum another chance for a mislynch

[Jack]

Can't we get 4 people nominated tomorrow?

ab ab ad

bc bc bd

ac ac cd

dd <--romanus

They all have 5. Then if "a" doesn't get nominated we'll know one of those people is scum.

[JDodge]

Can't we get 4 people nominated tomorrow?

ab ab ad

bc bc bd

ac ac cd

dd <--romanus

They all have 5. Then if "a" doesn't get nominated we'll know one of those people is scum.

Please see option 3.

[Jack]

How exactly does scum pick? We can assign who nom's who beforehand.

[JDodge]

How exactly does scum pick? We can assign who nom's who beforehand.

Because that won't work due to a few too many variables.

[Ghyrt]

How exactly does scum pick? We can assign who nom's who beforehand.

That was the fatal flaw in my initial logic. If we were all town, we could get everyone nominated; all the votes would be even and everyone would have 2 votes. Since there are scum, all they have to do is "break" the tie, effectively choosing who is picked.

[Jack]

Right. I say we just each nominate who we find most scummy, and rely on our townie instincts to get scum nominated. Much harder for the scum to manipulate things if they don't know who is going to be nominated. Then tomorrow we can ask the noms question again, and this time everyone will have to explain their nominations. I don't know if we'll be able to agree on someone collectively.

[Ghyrt]

Right. I say we just each nominate who we find most scummy, and rely on our townie instincts to get scum nominated. Much harder for the scum to manipulate things if they don't know who is going to be nominated. Then tomorrow we can ask the noms question again, and this time everyone will have to explain their nominations.

I don't know if we'll be able to agree on someone collectively

.

That's like saying we couldn't agree on who we lynch. Of course we're capable of making an informed decision. Its simply a matter of whether or not insuring the nominees is worth the risk of being forced to lynch a townie. Oh wait *condescending tone* ... if we don't coordinate the nominations, we might have to lynch a townie anyway.

[Jack]

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

We should be worrying more about finding the scum now than about nominations. Would the rest of you mind putting up lists like the one I posted?

[Skruffs]

Couldn't it also be said that the lists could be manipulated by mafia into getting the wrong people nominated?

[Ghyrt]

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

We should be worrying more about finding the scum now than about nominations. Would the rest of you mind putting up lists like the one I posted?

Yeah, but....

/I guess I should mention now that I'll be away from Wednesday evening until Sunday evening.

Might not have time until then.

[Ghyrt]

Couldn't it also be said that the lists could be manipulated by mafia into getting the wrong people nominated?

I think he means an analysis of every player. It would be good if everyone did that.

[Jack]

Couldn't it also be said that the lists could be manipulated by mafia into getting the wrong people nominated?

You could also say that the act of posting can manipulate things in the mafias favor.

[Raging Rabbit]

Another short reply for now, since I'm sorta incapable of proccessing all this extra data atm (seriously, this has to be the most active town eva) - I still have severe doubts about using the graph as actual evidence (I think Jack explained why that is better than I did in his initial post, but I was totally the first to diss the graph ). While I'm still generally happy to have it and disagree with the Dawg's "keep confusing info secret" logic, I think that said info is in this case a bit

too

confusing to be taken as anything other than extremely situational. I feel Skruffs' initial post was a bit too confident, and words like "probably" or "I think" are generally a bit too strong for such strech-y evidence. I'd have liked to see more of the words "slightly" or "itsy bitsy" in such a post, but maybe that's just me.

Sorry if I'm repeating anything here, I barely even skimmed page 13 thus far. I'd again like to urge Skruffs to explain his martyr-ish tendencies.


On another meta-note, Ghyrt, I'd like to ask you to silently withstand the severe problems you seem to have with my style and talk to me post-game. I really don't think you hating me personally should have anything to do with your opinion on my alignment. Thanks.

[Jack]

I'm not liking Skruffs play lately. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting that last comment.