RWarehall: I'm not so amused with Bier's voting. He doesn't really give much of a reason and its strange that he claims this as a serious vote but basically set it up like a carnie at a circus. Are you really being serious or are you just having fun, or both? Bookwyrm's defense of these antics is also interesting.
Bier - Are his shenanigans meant as a distraction? It sure is consistent with trying to change the topic to save a scum buddy....
1) Not amused? Why in heaven's name might that be?
2) And who is this bier person? Though that name is pretty ominous, referring to burials and all. It also refers to beer, but of course in German. And German leads to Nazis and Nazis lead to death. Ominous, indeed.
3) oh, you mean me. well, as for distancing, i'm not sure what you think I'm distancing myself from, given that my vote was originally for that which shall not be named or even referred to. So I'm distancing myself from...nobody? That would be a devious play - very devious indeed. Perhaps nobody and I are on the same team...best monitor that closely.
3) My answer to your more serious question ties back into flub's question, which I assumed I would respond to when someone picked it up again. Which no one did. If I were vigilante with only 1 shot, I wouldn't use it on RW, no. If I had 2 shots, maybe. Not so much because the odds of hunching right are good (they're not) but as a defensive play in the off chance I get knocked out in the first two days. Which, given my playstyle, is probably a decent bet. So if I had three shots, definitely. Plus I'd know the odds of anyone else being guilty for me with the shot are slightly higher than average since they'd be m/(n-1) rather than m/n. With three shots, darn right I'm shootin'.
Now, that said, that's not the task at hand, where however smart we think we are or how much we really think we know, the odds of us collectively lynching right are still just m / n. If a non-vote is so verboten so as to be beyond the pale (at long last, sir, have I no decency?), then my task is really to assess not who is definitively guilty, nor even more likely than not, but just who strikes me as in the pool where P>(m/13).
Knowing my own innocence, I look around the table and see the average likelihood of guilt in the pool as being m/13, and assuming m =4, that's 31%. I weigh the odds of RW being guilty at about 35-40%. Lynch him and more likely than not he comes up town. There's no way around that, with any of us. We're all more likely to turn up town than not.
Which is partly why I find the debate between JMich and yog a bit farcical. Though as a purely logical matter, JMich's statement on theory testing is indeed true, the whole gambit in my mind seems somewhat to rely on the assumption that wyrm's guilt is a 50/50 proposition, when from the group's perspective as much as anybody else the reality is that there's a 70% chance he's innocent and turns up town when flipped. Turn the gambit on trent and it would be just the same.
Can I make a compelling argument for that pretty minor swing in perceived guilt on RW? No. It's largely hunch around a few measly comments that struck me funny. It's also one reason I'm not inclined to try laying out a case for group dissection nor swaying anyone else to jump on the wagon. It's just a hunch. And one that's more likely wrong than not.
Not much I can do about that at this point.