Adel (1125) wrote:ortolan wrote:
The linked game is not a large game (thus making it more likely independently he would have mentioned his scumbuddy by name in his first post due to fewer players being able-to-be-mentioned). This makes your sample of one even less valid.
the small sample size problem is always present in mafia. My method of scumhunting always relies upon small shifts in probability.
Of course the other problem with this theory anyhow is that Jebus not being God is perfectly compatible with your theory of qwints. He may
1) Have genuinely recruited Jebus and was just lying about not having recruited him. In which case he is naming his scumbuddy (highly unlikely).
or
2) Have tried to but not been successful in recruiting Jebus. He knows he is a form of scum, like himself, thus he votes him, naming something like his "scumbuddy" (reasonably likely).
Of course if your "naming scumbuddy" theory isn't correct (also reasonably likely), then in the case of the second point (the first is still highly unlikely), it's very, very plausible he indeed tried to recruit Jebus, failed, knows he's an enemy cult or Nietzsche and thus wanted to vote/lynch/kill him, irrespective of whether he usually vote scumbuddies in his first post. So you are flawed in that your determination of his meta is poorly founded, plus even if you are correct he may still have been complying with your meta on him if Jebus isn't God.
Adel (1125) wrote:to me it feels like they are. It is hard to justify intuition with honesty. If you like I can do a PBPA and rationalize it (and make it sound good) but the source of my conclusion was intuition.
You'll need more than this, sorry. You can't fall back on "intuition" when you're talking about doing something which looks likely to lose us the game.
Adel (1125) wrote:he was going for his "secondary win" of god not dying even if he does. It is a reflex action of scum... even though the win conditions in this game are different, the instinct to distance from his scummate remained.
He openly acknowledged his desire to protect God. He might be a unique (and special) player but I have to assume cult leaders would play like I would i.e. being indifferent to whether they or God were lynched, because they lose either way.
Adel (1125) wrote:there were 20 players in the game. 20-1 = 19. If he was taking his knowledge of who god is into account, the base number would've been 18 instead of 19. The point is valid.
Big, big assumption. I've made mistakes like that when I forgot take into account whether I'm calculating probability from someone's perspective or in general like that before.
Adel (1125) wrote:Adel (1091) wrote:4. Players with hidden information (scum) are much more likely to name each other.
5. All of my chief scum suspects named Jebus multiple times.
So you're saying the cult players are likely to attack the other cult players e.g. Jebus.
"name" means typing his name into a post. I did not say they attacked him.
That may be true, but it's not relevant to the point I was making. Change to "So you're saying the cult players are likely to
name
the other cult players e.g. Jebus." It doesn't mean Jebus is
God
Adel (1125) wrote:no, you wouldn't see a damn thing because they wouldn't be sure how to respond. Then they would quickly lynch qwints, exactly what happened. qwints was absolutely correct that the optimal move for agnostics was to lynch Jebus. Notice how that didn't happen.
You possibly have an argument for saying that lynching qwints was wrong in
retrospect
but at the time we definitely did not know that qwints was a cult leader rather than God, and I for one thought there was a decent chance of it considering he'd already lied once about the full extent of his scumminess.
