Lurk much?
Whatever pazzer flips doesn't make you town.

We don't know we'll get an extension... It would be shit to relax and then get another nolynch, especially when I'm fairly sure we have scum cornered.

Well, you already said it yourself - so let me add the others to it: Now why could we get some understanding of flubbuckets alignment as opposed to not lynching him? Well, I guess that must be because.....Multiple people concluded that flubbucket would likely be town if Pazzer is truthful. However Pazzer has just admitted to lying (for a likely reason, but still) and claimed again, so we currently can't draw any conclusion, while if we know that Pazzer is truthful (by lynch) we will also have an indication/understanding/estimated guess as to flubbuckets alignment (him being town and all).

Honestly Vitek, with this post and the fact that you are still voting for me (as the only one) mere hours before the lynch and still spending the time with bad argument against my post for a lynch than actually doing something.....
And only scum will have any form of reason to do that, since town should not be going for No Lynch scenarios.

As such Vitek you've just jumped to certain scum on my list;

To name few reasons:
- He is not participating in the vote
- He is trying awfully hard to discredit my reasons for supporting a lynch to happen today (interestingly he has been doing that for a while now, and easily refuted each time only to just drop it without significant discussion or arguments)
- He is doing a pretty neat job of staying low, not really voting for anything significant (Robbeasy, while not posting much at least took part with a vote and his view)

So really are we going for a no-lynch again?? Why oh why isn't people switching votes to Pazzer already? Its like in this game that people have some sort of block against actually taking a true commitment by voting for something that has a meaning in relation to the game - as opposed to not voting or just placing a vote on persons with zero chance of getting lynched and not talking about/nor actually changing it even with deadline almost upon us..

OH and nmillar, scum points for you right there - the likeliness of an extension and Joe seeing it, after pretty much the same was asked last and this time Joe even posted after it was first mentioned, makes it a very odd request.

Come on with the damn last vote.. we cannot have another no-lynch.

I think we're at lynch now (we were at -1, then pazzer unselfvoted, and then two others voted). Not sure what to expect. Still, the nagging question in front of every categorical "aargh avoid nolynch" : Does mafia prefer mislynch or nolynch ?


Even two cop claims look weird to me, I was surprised that CSPVG didn't react more to Pazzer's claim (and Pazzer's lack of "no, I am already a daycop" also played a role in my doubts about his claim). CSPVG justifies it with favor-based doubts on fiability. I'm not completely convinced that it was sufficient to justify it.

Also, to get back to NMillar's probability calculations. They are wrong (in the block case, selectively) because he adds one irrelevant iteration (the "particular name" one, akin to the "why me" paradox of lottery winners or plane crash survivors). But if you add CSPVG, them yes, you arrive at three visitors, and this corresponds to the stats he had calculated for two. In the void, this would be exactly as unlikely as what he "calculated" for two visitors. And this makes me suspect that CSPVG could have been visiting me for other reasons than crazy copping (itself an anticipation of later fake accusations ?).

But again, we were not in the void, and maybe my behaviour was sufficient to trigger the attention of so many people. It's hard to say, as I don't read myself from outside very well. So I have to ask others, how likely it is, in their eyes, for (at least?) three people to have visited me that same night ?

What? SIrPrimalform brought it up in post 996 and JMich supported it in post 997. JoeSapphire's last post was post 990, before either anyone suggested the extension?

Okay, I think I kind of understand what you're saying now.

There is a 1 in 14 chance of me protecting the victim because the mafia has already selected who they've targeted? And there's a 1 in 14 chance of me having jailed the person carrying out the night kill? I don't really understand why the 1 in 11 choice of the mafia isn't taken into account though, but I'm willing to accept there is a decent possibility of you being town.

pazzer's claim makes sense to me because I have to be in on a lynch of my "brother" as well. Makes sense he would want the same.

I am also in the Red_Baron camp wondering why the last vote is so difficult to get. As far as DarkoD13's comment...reread my posts and see my willingness to be lynched in order to prove my towniness and pazzer's false accusations. Your point is invalid.

Math example follows.

Roll two 6-sided dice. The chance of both turning up the same number is 1/6. The chance of both turning up 6 is 1/36.

If you aim for a specific number (equivalent to both targeting Telika), then you need the first person to choose the specific, and the second person to also choose the same. If you don't care about a specific number, then you have 6 positive outcomes out of 36 total possibilities, so 1/6 total.

Do ask if you want a more detailed explanation, but I do think we'll be going way off topic, even for a mafia game.

For this, I simplify. I'm not sure what the correct caclulation would be. I think in terms of 1/14 in the sens that, for me, any non-evaluated player has 1/15 chances of being the mafia's next victim, as I have no idea who is the mafia and who must be excluded. If I was mafia, I'd be calculating the chances of someone being the next victim through the elimination of the names I'd know wouldn't be on the potential list.

I think it's the fair way to calculate. But I don't really care, as the probability difference wouldn't be significant enough in my eyes. I care for the fallacy that would impact the results tenfolds, as that one would look more significant to me.

If you were following this perspective (which I don't think would be very correct) and vote for me because you'd considfer I'd have a 1/11 chances to be scum as opposed to a 1/14 chances of being town, I'd still be kinda okay with that. But framing it as a conviction looked unsincere to me.

Using "honestly", another scum tell. Thanks fo telling us you were not honest before.
Coupled with previous "interesting". Dig deeper. Dig deeper.

So in the context of the game, then there's also the chance of 2 people both selecting flubbucket (or any other player), so the probability of 2 independent players selecting the same target would be 1 in 14, as there are 14 possible combinations of the same player being picked?

1:1, 2:2, 3:3 ... 12:12, 13:13, 14:14?

It's obviously not an exact science as the mafia are not going to target their scum buddies, but I think I get why the probabilities are much lower.

Not sure I get this. You validate pazzer's claim (making him more likely to be town) and you complain that he's not lynched yet (by the way I think he is, isn't he) ?

but most importantly - it was not 1/14, nor 1/11.

At nmillar's own admittance, it was not a random choice of all 14 participants, but selected from a list. How big was that list - this thereby just breaks any probability calculations...

I remember a previous game which had two lynchers (with each other as lynchees) - one was town aligned, one was mafia aligned. This confirms for me that one or the other is scum.

Probablility/chance debate is boring.

They were both town.