You want a repeat of the serious answer ?

I'm saying that your argument is biased by your use of "particular" person. That you could have this whole thing about any other player if that other player had been targetted by two people. So you have to multiply the chances by the number of possible different cases.

You have players[1-to-15]. The chances of one random player being targetted is 1/1, because one of them WILL be targetted. The chances of one "particular" (pre-chosen) player being targetted is 1/15. The reasons to consider this as a specific, 1/15 cases, can be multiple. They can be "ooh 1/15 chances of being player number 7", or "ooh 1/15 chances of being player acting assassin", or "ooh 1/15 chances of being player chosen as victim". But you dishonestly combine these chances in two séparâtes way. You make it a pre-defined player ("chances of being player 7") in the case of "chances of being victim" and you don't do it in the case of "chances to play assassin".

I could use the same flawed argumentations in many ways. Like "how many chances for me to be that character AND that character to be jailed.... let's see... there were 1/15 chances of me being that character, multiplied by 1/14 chances of that character being jailed, woah, I had 1/210 chances of being jailed". This is a fallacy. In reality, I simply had 1/14 chances to be jailed.

Like every character did.

And the chances of some character being jailed were 14/14. A character WAS to be jailed.

This is why I gave you the double dice exemple. The chances for a dice result to match another dice result are THE SAME as the chances for a dice result to match a predefined number (no matter how it was predefined).

I don't know how else to rephrase it. The way you calculate makes the fact that I-as-Telika was the target is important. You caculate how much chances there was for me-as-Telika-specifically to be targetted by both jail and kill. This is a bias, because what matters is the chances of a player in general (any player) being targetted by both jail and kill. For whatever action hapens to a player, you can chooe to randomly add "and what were the chances for that player to have that name". But you add it only in the convenient situation (protection), and you remove it where you want (murder attempt).

Or, how else can I rephrase it. You have 14 upside down cup. Under one of them is "i am the assassin", under another one is "i am the victim". You jail by lifting one of these cups. You have equal 1/14 chances of getting any of these two.

It is not a matter of perspective, it is a matter of applying the same perspective on both cases.

Ultimately it's a matter of being honestly scumhunting, or just attempting to mount an anything-goes fallacy to justify a pre-decided vote. And you have shown other exemples of it (like your "certitude" about Rob and SirPrimal, for the same reason, and the sudden drop of only one of them).

Brah. Full of typos and formatting issues. Didn't want to spend hours on maths lessons in a context I distrust.

For what it's worth, Telika's maths makes sense to me.

As for the paz situation... I don't know what to do. On the one hand, this does fit with what Quad said, but on the other hand this claim could be an attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable lynch after the inconsistency with Quad's softclaim.

This sudden revelation only comes after he was caught out which makes me fairly suspicious. This is the second player to have admitted to a false claim, this is getting ridiculous. I still that it's highly likely that paz is scum, he's just squirming. How many times do we let scum change their stories' to fit new evidence before we lynch them?

I lost count of how things are going. Can I just vote lynch? I don't even care who anymore, I just don't want another no-lynch.

Yeah, we are dangerously close to another no-lynch right now...

Given pazzer's absence until yesterday and revelations today, doesn't it make sense to extend the day instead of the night? Instead of starting the night tonight and then not being able to actually deal with night actions for a few days, why not start the night when you have time to deal with it? Either way the next day will start at the same time surely?

Gah, damn it pazzer. I could see the lyncher being a falseclaim prepared in advance once flub flipped town, but seeing how the quote Telika unearthed was by Quadralien and not you, I do now doubt it.

I also find it curious that the Inspector didn't counterclaim pazzer, though that is expected.

Now, let's see which people were on the wagons.

Oh, I also second SPF's suggestion of extending the day instead of the night.

So pazzer pulled an amok, awesome. Are we still not lynching liars or is he dead?

I get the impression it wasn't at all prepared in advance but rather thrown together only after Telika quoted Quad.

Clarification. If I was playing scum, I could hatch a plan of claiming to have one-shot cop and find X as non-town, then when he flips town claim lyncher, apologize, and continue the game. But since the first hint was by Quad, and the lyncher claim was by pazzer, I too believe that it's not a pre-planned scum falseclaim. Unless Joe gave them that one, which I hope not.

Why would he? He never actually claimed he was the Inspector.




Also, what am I missing? Isn't pazzer lynched?

Waiting for your vote....

I'm counting 7 (he unvoted himself but didn't include his name), so this should seal the deal and clear some things:
unvote flubbucket, vote pazzer

This is going far too quickly again. There is the possibility that the mod will extend the day, so we should be using that opportunity to have further discussions, rather than pushing a lynch through quickly now and having an extended night time.

I would like to add my voice to those who have already asked for an extension.