Cold War Mafia - GAME OVER!!

[Enigma]

And because I know you are going to ask me to explain it

AGAIN

egl/enigma looks bad in the first one because it is highly unlikely that a wagon would have got to 9 without a single scum being on it, and lowell looks bad in the second one because it is very unlikely that a wagon would have got to 7 without a single scum being on it.

No, I'm just wondering if you are stupid or something.
Not only have you not even made an effort to investigate the basis of the vote counts, you haven't even looked at the analysis I returned from doing all the hard work for you.
I'll say it again briefly. EGL had that vote parked on you at the very beginning, well before the wagon started. You acted scummy, you got votes on you, a strong case was made on you, simple as that. This was not some wagon that scum would have to force, your scumminess pretty much forced it.

Evidence without understanding and context is merit-less. You just simply read the mod in ISO and picked out a few random vote counts and presented them in the most incriminating way possible with due consideration of the situation.

Also, since it might be hard to get through your head, can I just seek clarification on this? Have you actually realized that I replaced into this game several days ago and EGL has not been playing this game for several months? Honestly? Can you care to elaborate how MY play is scummy, and actually put the effort into to read and analyze MY posts, and not try and base an entire case on one vote count from the beginning of day 1?

Because your reluctantness to do so, screams of scum trying to push for an easy town wagon. And it's not because you're lazy, it's because you don't want to, you've been yakking on about your stupid vote counts for ages, and have had plenty of opportunity and time to have a look at MY play in detail, and to review what I had to research for you above.

Also, Enigma, seeing as how you are American with ThAd, and ThAd is pegged as town mutliple times, it leaves you as one of the last US scum. Can you please explain how you are not?

LOL? I actually am quite amused about you asking this question but I'll humor you I suppose.
First, I'm not pegging Thad as town, and this is independent of the nationality claims.
Second, US scum are lying and claiming Soviet.

Can I ask you a question now? Out of pity I suppose? A few actually.
Can you clarify the case on me? What have I (Read ME not EGL who was replaced over a month ago) done that suggests I have a scum agenda?
Is the entire case on me based on

vote count analysis

ONE vote count from the beginning of Day 1, taken out of context, and the fact that I truthfully claimed my nationality?
Why would I volunteer to claim my nationality first, then claim truthfully when if US scum it would have been SOOOOO much more beneficial to let the day stagnate and see if everyone else could be arsed doing something about claims, and wait for a popcorn to me and compare the situation then, then likely lie?

[Enigma]

Scum List: Lowell, Sathoris, Thad.

[The Fonz]

Enigma: Vote. For. Sathoris.

[Enigma]

Why?
And. Why. Is. Thad. Voting. Sathoris?

[Sathoris]

Why?
And. Why. Is. Thad. Voting. Sathoris?

Since we're ignoring PV cause we can't afford a misskill from the vig it's between you and me from Fonz' pov. But thAd is among the possibilities aswell. It's all about minimizing suspects for bvoigt to kill tonight.

VOTE: Enigma

Actually greater than the odds of Feysal being town and Smarg both being town and having Feysal's rolename listed differently in the two role pms. But still not very likely.

That was due to mod error I reckon. This certainly can't be.

[Sotty7]

5th vote count of day 6

Enigma - 3 -

Lowell, The Fonz, Sathoris

Sathoris - 1 -

ThAdmiral

Not voting - 3 -

bvoigt, Enigma, PeregrineV

• The deadline for the end of day six is Friday 27th May @ 9pm CST
  
• With
  7
  alive it takes
  4
  to lynch.

[The Fonz]

Why?
And. Why. Is. Thad. Voting. Sathoris?

You honestly think I haven't explained? Also, BECAUSE YOU JUST CALLED HIM SCUM.

Incoming wall:

__________________________________________________________________
OK, so here's some context. Town wagons on day one basically never get to eight votes without any scum. Here's some examples from Simpsons Mafia, which like this was a 24p large theme with two scumgroups, only there were only six total mafia, so it'd be even less likely for a wagon to get to eight without any in this game than it was in that game. The highest a wagon got on all town votes was four. Here are all the wagons that got to five or more on day one, town in green, one scumgroup in red, the other in black:

Hiraki

(9):

Benmage,

ribwich,

,

DarlaBlueEyes,

,

Wraith,

Mist7676,

DemonHybrid,

Deer,

diddin,

Mariyta

The scum weren't the first two on the wagon, but both were on before it got to seven votes: it just looks that way because some town unvoted then returned.

DemonHybrid(5)

-

boberz,

sottyrulez,

Zang,

hiraki,

tvellalott

DarlaBlueEyes

(8)-

KageLord,

boberz,

tvellalott,

Deer,

sottyrulez

,

jasonT1981,

SensFan

,

Mist7676

KageLord(5)-

Fuzzy Beavers,

The Fonz,

sottyrulez,

LlamaFluff,

Tragedy

Again, Jason was actually on the wagon before Deer or Sotty, but unvoted at some point.

Mist7676

- 10 -

hiraki,

SensFan,

jasonT1981,

The Fonz,

sottyrulez,

DarlaBlueEyes,

LlamaFluff,

KageLord,

DemonHybrid,

Nero Cain

This wagon actually reached 13 and lynched, with a second scum (from a different group) providing the hammer. This is about as town-driven a wagon on town as you're ever going to see, but there was still scum on it before it got to eight.

______________________________________________________

[Enigma]

Town

wagons on day one basically never get to eight votes without any scum.

1. This likely isn't a town wagon.
2. Are you going realize that unlikely isn't the same as never?
3. Have you reviewed the context where THIS particular wagon in question formed?
4. Will you quit life when you realize you are wrong? Please?

[The Fonz]

Town

wagons on day one basically never get to eight votes without any scum.

1. This likely isn't a town wagon.

I have a strong town read on ThAd. Even so, you're implicitly endorsing the argument by using this counterargument. If ThAd is scum, then you aren't. But do you have a convincing argument for why ThAd is scum? I haven't heard one.

2. Are you going realize that unlikely isn't the same as never?

I've never seen it happen. It's not beyond the bounds of probability that it could. But mafia is a game of probabilities. It is very probable that that wagon had scum on it. Ergo, it is very probable that you are scum. I'm not claiming to be certain here, and it isn't my only reason for suspecting you, but it's a pretty damn good reason.

Put it this way. Two-thirds of the players on d1 were town, and 1/3 scum. 2/3 to the power eight is 0.404, or roughly one in twenty-four and a half. To the power nine, implying that all nine were town including the target, gives us just less than 1/37. The actual odds of a wagon of eight being all town are lower than that, because the probabilities aren't independent: if the first player on a wagon is town, then the odds of the second being town at random isn't 8/24, it's 8/23, the third 8/22 and so on, but that's a quick and dirty way of working it out. Your argument is that this particular wagon is that one in 25 or more that gets to eight without any scum on it. That's possible, but it's not the way I'd want to bet.

3. Have you reviewed the context where THIS particular wagon in question formed?

I don't need to. My argument is that, in general, wagons, and particularly town wagons, don't get to 8 without scum on them in games where scum are 1/3 of the total players. If you have an argument about why, given the context, this wagon was particularly likely to be all town, then FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, supply me with it. If you're not going to do that, then I'm going to conclude you're simply mudslinging here.

4. Will you quit life when you realize you are wrong? Please?

No, because I'm not wrong. The probability says what it says. Even if this turns out to be an outlier occurrence, it doesn't mean playing the probabilities was a bad idea given what I know right now. Especially when I think your proposed alternative, lynching ThAd, is much more likely to result in a town lynch than a scum lynch.

Also, your 'What about ME? What is scummy about MY play?" Well, that for starters. You replaced EGL. If he's scum, you're scum. You're asking us to discard valid scumhunting information because it makes you look bad. That, in itself, is scummy.

[The Fonz]

Ed: probability is 0.0404, not 0.404. That's a pretty glaring different.

[Enigma]

If you have an argument about why, given the context, this wagon was particularly likely to be all town, then FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, supply me with it. If you're not going to do that, then I'm going to conclude you're simply mudslinging here.

Are you unable to read or are you just choosing to act illiterate?

I'll say it again briefly. EGL had that vote parked on you at the very beginning, well before the wagon started. You acted scummy, you got votes on you, a strong case was made on you, simple as that. This was not some wagon that scum would have to force, your scumminess pretty much forced it.

Also, please don't try acting brains and try and use statistics when it is so laughably wrong. This is not an ordered sequence.
The actual answer is 0.0724 i.e. 7.24%. Which I wouldn't mind betting on actually.

[Enigma]

Disclaimer: I'm pretty sure that is the right answer, but hey I'm not a maths major. But Fonz's method is wrong though

[The Fonz]

If you have an argument about why, given the context, this wagon was particularly likely to be all town, then FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, supply me with it. If you're not going to do that, then I'm going to conclude you're simply mudslinging here.

Are you unable to read or are you just choosing to act illiterate?

I'll say it again briefly. EGL had that vote parked on you at the very beginning, well before the wagon started. You acted scummy, you got votes on you, a strong case was made on you, simple as that. This was not some wagon that scum would have to force, your scumminess pretty much forced it.

Your case is 'He was acting scummy. A strong case was made.' What is this strong case? Saying there's a case is not the same thing as there actually being a case. And you fucking call

me

illiterate, you douche? You're arguing like a Creationist. And even then, you're fucking well assuming the premise that scum won't vote for scummy looking town, which is just ridiculous.

Also, please don't try acting brains and try and use statistics when it is so laughably wrong. This is not an ordered sequence.
The actual answer is 0.0724 i.e. 7.24%. Which I wouldn't mind betting on actually.

Hang on. For all eight to be town, then the first has to be town, then the second, then the third... up to eight. If there's a scum at any point, we stop, yes? It's the equivalent probability of pulling eight red socks at random out of a drawer containing sixteen red and eight blue ones. Even if you were right, I'd bet on the 93%, not the seven.

How about an avatar bet? I ask a neutral observer to go on random.org, and generate eight random values between 1 and 24. If any of them are eight or lower, I win.

[The Fonz]

100 Random sets, consisting of numbers between 1 and 24, eight unique values in each. Of the 100 sets, ONE has no number eight or lower.

Set 1: 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 16, 20
Set 2: 2, 3, 7, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23
Set 3: 2, 3, 6, 11, 13, 15, 20, 24
Set 4: 2, 4, 8, 12, 18, 19, 21, 23
Set 5: 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 21, 22
Set 6: 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20
Set 7: 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 22
Set 8: 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23
Set 9: 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 20, 21, 24
Set 10: 6, 10, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22
Set 11: 2, 4, 10, 13, 14, 15, 22, 24
Set 12: 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 19
Set 13: 2, 3, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 20
Set 14: 2, 3, 4, 10, 16, 17, 23, 24
Set 15: 1, 2, 3, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20
Set 16: 2, 4, 5, 12, 14, 18, 20, 22
Set 17: 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 21, 23
Set 18: 2, 4, 6, 10, 19, 21, 23, 24
Set 19: 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 19, 22
Set 20: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 21
Set 21: 1, 2, 4, 6, 14, 16, 20, 22
Set 22: 1, 2, 7, 9, 16, 17, 21, 24
Set 23: 2, 3, 4, 12, 17, 20, 22, 23
Set 24: 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 21, 23, 24
Set 25: 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17
Set 26: 1, 2, 7, 10, 14, 17, 20, 21
Set 27: 4, 11, 13, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24
Set 28: 1, 4, 5, 7, 15, 16, 20, 21
Set 29: 5, 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, 21, 24
Set 30: 3, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, 22, 24
Set 31: 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 19
Set 32: 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 20
Set 33: 1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 18, 20, 22
Set 34: 1, 4, 7, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21
Set 35: 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17
Set 36: 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, 22, 23
Set 37: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, 19, 23
Set 38: 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24
Set 39: 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 18, 22, 24
Set 40: 1, 3, 12, 13, 15, 20, 22, 23
Set 41: 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 20, 23
Set 42: 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23
Set 43: 2, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19
Set 44: 4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24
Set 45: 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 18, 19, 21
Set 46: 3, 5, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 20
Set 47: 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16
Set 48: 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 24
Set 49: 2, 5, 9, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21
Set 50: 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18
Set 51: 6, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23
Set 52: 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 21, 24
Set 53: 1, 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 22, 24
Set 54: 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19
Set 55: 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24
Set 56: 1, 2, 5, 13, 16, 19, 23, 24
Set 57: 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23
Set 58: 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 17, 20, 23
Set 59: 6, 7, 10, 15, 20, 22, 23, 24
Set 60: 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20
Set 61: 1, 4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24
Set 62: 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 20, 21
Set 63: 2, 8, 11, 12, 19, 22, 23, 24
Set 64: 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 13, 17, 18
Set 65: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 17, 22
Set 66: 3, 8, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20, 24
Set 67: 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, 16, 19, 24
Set 68: 3, 6, 14, 16, 20, 21, 23, 24
Set 69: 2, 4, 6, 10, 17, 19, 23, 24
Set 70: 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, 15, 16, 24
Set 71: 2, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 22, 24
Set 72: 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 20, 24
Set 73: 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 16, 20
Set 74: 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20
Set 75: 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22
Set 76: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 23, 24
Set 77: 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18
Set 78: 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20
Set 79: 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15
Set 80: 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14
Set 81: 2, 3, 8, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23
Set 82: 2, 4, 9, 11, 15, 16, 22, 24
Set 83: 3, 7, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20, 24
Set 84: 3, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24
Set 85: 7, 8, 9, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22
Set 86: 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 22
Set 87: 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 19, 22
Set 88: 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 24
Set 89: 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 20
Set 90: 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 22
Set 91: 1, 2, 7, 14, 17, 18, 21, 23
Set 92: 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 23
Set 93: 1, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 24
Set 94: 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 20, 24
Set 95: 1, 6, 8, 12, 15, 18, 22, 24
Set 96: 2, 8, 11, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22
Set 97: 3, 6, 8, 13, 15, 19, 22, 24
Set 98: 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19
Set 99: 2, 3, 8, 10, 18, 19, 22, 24
Set 100: 3, 9, 14, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24

[The Fonz]

And if that's too small a sample size, I just did it with 500 results, and got twelve such combinations. Aka 2.4%. Anyone is free to try this themselves.

[Enigma]

Nvm, I just recalled high school and pulling black jellybeans out of a jar in maths class without replacement. We are both wrong.
1.74%

[The Fonz]

Enigma: thankyou. That calculation at least shows a willingness to be intellectually honest, since it was lower than mine. What I'm doing at the moment, however, is running a 1000-set analysis on random.org. The number of 'no numbers less than 9' sets seems to support your calculation, for there were 18 such in a thousand. However, I'm also comparing this to the number of 'exactly one number less than nine' sets. Because we know that we're not looking at a wagon with two, three or four scum on it, it's either 0 or 1, so i need to see roughly how likely these two things are, relatively. Back with you in a moment.

[The Fonz]

9 with no scum up to 500
9 with no scum past 500

12 with exactly one scum up to 100
9 with 1 scum 101-200
11 with 1 scum 201-300
15 with 1 scum 301-400
7 with 1 scum 401-500
15 with 1 scum 501-600
13 with 1 scum 601-700
13 with 1 scum 701-800
12 with 1 scum 801-900
17 with 1 scum 901-100

Total: No scum 18
1 Scum: 124

So, roughly six times as likely there is one scum on a given wagon as there are none.

[Enigma]

I'm pretty sure 1.74% is right, and it matches up with the above, but all this really is pointless because voting isn't random.
Unless this is a feat of pride, something which really doesn't bother me anyways.

However 0.0174 is unlikely, but in no means impossible.
Quick analogy, my final design project was due for presentation at 9am today. 60 groups presenting, and whilst the project was done, I just needed a bit of preparation with my teammates before the presentation.
Stupidly, I slept in and got there at like 8:50am. Go to the class to see this randomly generated list of who is presenting in what order. Chances of going first are 0.01667 anyways .. low right?

And god forbid .... the first group randomly selected on the list was Group 16. I scratch my head a bit .. then I realize ......... I'm in group 16. WTF!
Most stressful 10 minutes of my life.

[The Fonz]

I'm pretty sure you're right. Like I said, my first figure was an estimate, it would have taken much more time to work out the conditional probability than to hit 0.67^8. I wasn't worried about being over, since I was pretty confident my rough estimate would show a very low likelihood. My point is that it is very unlikely that no scum were on an eight-man wagon, and that's true whether it's 7%, 4% or 2% likely.

You're right about mafia not being random, but I think the non-random elements, ie the difference between town and scum motivations, actually make scum MORE likely to be on that wagon rather than less. I'm pretty sure in practice I've seen a wagon get to eight solely on town votes less often than one game in ten (which itself assumes that 2-3 wagons will get that high on day one, which seems a decent rough and ready figure). A contextual argument against this might be that ThAd had made a 'slip' which seemed to town to be insider info, but scum knew actually wasn't. Then I could see the scum motivation in trying to go after someone more likely to be rival scum.

Because bear in mind, in a twofold game then if a player looks really scummy and isn't a team-mate, scum aren't going to assume that they're town. They're going to think the scummiest looking players (in their eyes) outside their team are likely rival scum.

[PeregrineV]

V/LA until Saturday May21 (r/l issues)

I think we can hold lyncvhing for a few more days. Also not caught up as this in an emergency.

[bvoigt]

VOTE: Sathoris

Trying to decide exactly what I want to do. The VCA is convincing, but my theory makes Enigma town....

[ThAdmiral]

^^^ this makes no sense. Where's the line for "appropriate number of town on a wagon"? Why seven? Looks like you invented a parallel logic to justify bad reasoning and now want to stick with it.

What don't people understand about: "it is very unlikely that a wagon would have got to 7 without a single scum being on it"?

@ fonz: To your first point I guess I just don't believe flavour arguments hold any weight in this game. The fact that he seems to be an impossible character probably means he is telling the truth if anything, seeing how crazy the history is in this game already!

Also, the logic of your votecount argument seems to suggest that Enigma is the most likely scum, but you're voting Sathoris. Can you briefly explain why you think Sathoris is the better lynch today?

While my votecount reasoning suggests enigma and lowell it is possible that they were all-town wagons. Basically I have lost a bit of faith in my theory. As far as sathoris goes it is not that I have better case on him, I just feel enigma and lowell are more likely town than sathoris (engima because of his genuine sounding -1 post yesterday, and lowell for generally town-looking play throughout the game) - so it is more of a poe reason than anything else.

No, I'm just wondering if you are stupid or something.

Stopped reading after that.

And. Why. Is. Thad. Voting. Sathoris?

Cause. I. Think. He. Is. Scum?

Would you rather me vote you? Because you're next in line.

[Lowell]

I can't even begin to fathom what a mathematical fail this has become. Yes, given 24 values, choosing eight, it is very unlikely that a

specific

set of eight will all be excluded. But that's true for any eight random values, so I could as easily parse any one of fifty different votecounts and show the different 8-player combinations that aren't on it, and note that it has only an infintessimal chance of occuring that way. The point: all specific events look famously unlikely while very unlikely individual occurances are in fact very likely to happen. The

bigger

point: this is just another exercise in trying to meta our way out of real scumhunting (see: mod-guessing). The better thing to talk about is how enigma is scum (which he is) because he's playing crazy scummy (which he is).

That said, I agree with fonz' assessment of pere. The claim was bad to begin with, but the way pere references it makes it clear (using links instead of reposting, saying "I've already claimed, look back," etc.) that he'd rather not have people think too hard about it. He walked into a bad claim from a bad former player: not his fault, but it doesn't make him less scum.

[ThAdmiral]

Two things your ignoring:

1. You're not factoring in regular behavior of scum which would generally be to take some part in any given decent wagon.
2. No one is voting based soley on the votecount analysis.