xkcd

by **BoomFrog** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:25 am UTC

I think we should do it with someone in the D1 mission. Being on that team only slightly increases my chances of being a spy (if we ignore posting and just go by odds). However the benefit of a D1 person opening up to another D1 person is that if we get a town result then we have divided the 4 man team into two likely town and a likely town/spy or spy/spy pair.

Without the gamebreaking torrent of cop powers we got last game we are going to have to make a judgment and trust someone. I'm just hoping that people can trust me. I'd be willing to have the open uper open up to Webby as well, then give KaCEOY to someone else. We should have the least trusted person on D1 mission open up to the most trusted person on D1 mission.

by **BoomFrog** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:27 am UTC

EBWOP:

Gopher of Pern wrote:KaCEOY would be most beneficial to be used on mission 1, would it not? So if we are using that this time around, we would be doing mission 1?

Yes, most likely.

by **webby** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:28 am UTC

Hmm, I'm trying to work out how much more likely it is people on the mission are spies, and whether I think cjdrum/roband are more likely to be a spy or spies.

Note - the below is objective, while I know I'm town, I'm taking the perspective of someone who doesn't have that knowledge:
The prior probability of each player being scum is 2/5.
The team was chosen reasonably randomly, so I'm making that assumption.

Total number of combinations of choosing four players - 210.
Total number which contain 4 spies - 1
3 spies - 4*6 = 24
2 spies - 4C2*6C2 = 90
1 spy - 4C1*6C3 = 80
0 spies - 6C4 = 15

Take out the 15 combinations with no spies, because there must have been at least one spy.
The average number of spies in these four players is:
(80+90*2+24*3+1*4)/195 = 1.7, compared to 1.6 if you choose any four players randomly.

I don't think that's a huge difference, so while all else being equal we should favour the players not on the team for mission 1, it's not a huge difference.

In terms of plot power strategy:
My preference would be for cjdrum to Open Up to Boomfrog/other townie-seeming player, because I think cjdrum has been scummier than any other player in the game so far. This is marginally over roband, because although roband's excuse isn't great, it's still better than 'I thought he'd use it', and it would be cjdrum who would use it if we took our normal strategy of going down the player list.
Another, thing I think should happen is that Keeping a Close Eye on You should be used by someone on the mission on someone else on the mission. I think that gives us maximum information. As an example - say we do mission 1 and player A uses the power on player B. If they come back with the result that player B passed the mission, but the mission failed then hypothetical townie player C knows that it must have been player A that failed the mission, and in fact everyone narrows it down to one of those two. So basically, this has to narrow things down to an either/or case, which its use by someone not on the mission doesn't have to do.

And I got ninja'd. I actually did the calculation though!

by **mpolo** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:06 am UTC

I think Mission one is a good one to do at the moment. Among the 4 who did our first mission, there are likely one or two spies (three or four are possible, but quite improbable). So that means that the other six include likely 2-3 spies. Using the people who were on mission one would make it more probable to actually catch a spy, I think, but I haven't done the math. I will try to come back to this later.

by **Misnomer** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:26 am UTC

OK, first things first:
FoS: Roband, cjdrum
Roband's excuse is weak but just about plausible - cjdrum doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on at all. There is no reason why he would not have sent in his power - if we were trying to use up the no confidences, then it really didn't matter at all if they both used the same power on the same mission.

I'm all for cjdrum being forced to open up to someone townie, but we need to remember that a reported town result wouldn't necessarily clear them (or the reporter) at this stage. It will give us an idea about possible networks though, so it should definitely be done.

For the next mission, I'm definitely thinking mission 1 with eye being used is a good idea. Again, if we can get a team that's adjacent to each other in the player list that's a boost, though I'd rather keep roband and cjdrum out of it for now. Speaking of those two, they still need to use up their no confidences.

by **roband** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:14 am UTC

I have no excuse guys, just a reason. I'm sorry.

I'm a little nervous about posting and making observations on who should go on missions. Obviously I know I'm town, so will be attempting to find the best team possible. Now that I'm potentially suspected, I fear that anyone I feel 'confident' about going on a mission will also be under potential suspicion.

Now, I know that building a list of everyone's 'networks' (good word Misnomer) is really useful for later in the game, but I just don't want to cloud things for us.

by **Adam H** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:34 pm UTC

DEFENDING MYSELF (sorta):

webby wrote:Basically, Adam H, you misrepresented me by taking a very early post and a post much later, without showing the series of posts that led me to change my mind.

You are completely right, I apologize. After looking back, I realize why I thought you suddenly changed your mind:

webby wrote:This sounds ok. Obviously the team leader should choose themselves. This is optimal play because if they were a spy, they'd choose a team that would fail anyway, whether it included themselves or not, while if they were resistance, then we'd want them on the team. I can expand on this if the logic of it isn't immediately clear. So we're looking for three people to go with them.

I misunderstood this post of yours to mean that the three people we are looking for are the ones receiving plot powers, since that hadnt been decided yet. This is basically the only post between Boomfrogs suggestion and the mission team proposal that doesn't assume we are using the next-four strategy, and since I basically ignored it, I couldn't see where you made the jump.

BoomFrog wrote:I agree with Webby's suspicions, and being attacked also makes me feel Webby's more likely to be town as well.

Let's not over-react here... I can see how I look scummy for bringing to light something that was wrong. However, all I said was that it struck me as "odd", which surely you can understand. And I can't judge gopher and lorenz for agreeing with me and I certainly can't judge webby or boomfrog for disagreeing.

WHAT TO DO NEXT:
I think we should not waste our time or plot powers with cjdrum. Cj: if you are town, I apologize, but seriously man. Horrific excuse. Roband was away from all forums for an entire week, and I can believe that he couldn't be bothered to look up what the NC meant. There is only ONE reason for you to think he was going to use his NC - which would be if you realized that you BOTH should use your NC. In which case you would have used yours. At least acknowledge that your non-action was stupid.

I think best play is to get open up to be used on two towny people who have been opposing each other. I think in order to win, we will need to make potentially flawed assuptions and hope for the best. Suppose I used open up on webby, and webby confirmed I was town. I can't imagine you would assume we are both spies, cause we've been sniping unnecessarily at each other for much of the game. Plus, webby (somewhat randomly) said I was less scummy than vector. That's not something one spy would say about another... So hopefully we'll get some small confirmation that they are both town. I realize that a confirmed town isn't really a confirmed town... but still.

Eye on you should be used on the same person open up was used on, i think. Assuming the open up comes back town, we need to check the person that claimed another was town. I think that would give us a ton of info. I don't think we should aim for getting 2 players that are town/spy or even a confirmed spy. That really won't help us much.

I do think we should at least consider going on M4. I'm not saying it's certainly the right call, but suppose that the spies fail M1 next. The 3 remaining spies will have 3 chances to get on a mission team. Whereas if we go on M4 next, if it fails we'll get lots of info and accusations, and I'd feel a lot more confident about M1. which would make me feel a lot more confident

Another thing to keep in mind: If the score goes 0-2 then KaEoY and In the Spotlight are worthless. We NEED to pass this next mission.

Also, hell no don't go down the line to select the team. We need info. I want to see who the leader selects and how everyone votes.

Here's my opinion on scumminess, based mainly on gut. Since I'm town, I have no secret connections but feel free to read into it as much as you want

Least scummy:
Me (obviously)
Boomfrog
Webby

No idea:
mpolo
lorenz
misnomer
gopher
vector

Scummiest:
Roband
cjdrum

by **Misnomer** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:48 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:I think best play is to get open up to be used on two towny people who have been opposing each other. I think in order to win, we will need to make potentially flawed assuptions and hope for the best. Suppose I used open up on webby, and webby confirmed I was town. I can't imagine you would assume we are both spies, cause we've been sniping unnecessarily at each other for much of the game. Plus, webby (somewhat randomly) said I was less scummy than vector. That's not something one spy would say about another... So hopefully we'll get some small confirmation that they are both town. I realize that a confirmed town isn't really a confirmed town... but still.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
That's a bucket load of wine you've splashed about there. I'm nervous about having you and webby on the same team now, let alone having one of you open up to the other. :shock:

That said, you do make a very good point about spotlight and eye becoming useless if we fail another mission. M4 is easier to win than M1, and on reflection I think we do need to get a win under our belts. So yeah, I'd be up for doing M4.

by **BoomFrog** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:08 pm UTC

@Webby: If you trust that I'm likely town then GoP and VZ are much more likely scum then anyone else. If we are going to target someone with Open up outside of the D1 team I'd like to pick someone lurkery/neutral. Someone we might take on a team if they are not copped. I don't want to waste coppings on someone who's likely scum, I'd rather just assume they are scum. If we don't target GoP I'd like to target Misnomer or mpolo.

mpolo wrote:I think Mission one is a good one to do at the moment. Among the 4 who did our first mission, there are likely one or two spies (three or four are possible, but quite improbable). So that means that the other six include likely 2-3 spies. Using the people who were on mission one would make it more probable to actually catch a spy, I think, but I haven't done the math. I will try to come back to this later.

This is bad logic. It's no less likely that we got 4 spies on this mission then any other random group of 4 is to contain 4 spies. Although I agree with your conclusion since I think Webby is likely town, your logic to get there doesn't work.

Misnomer wrote:FoS: Roband, cjdrum

Really? Thanks for pointing that out since no one before you noticed. :roll:

Misnomer wrote:Again, if we can get a team that's adjacent to each other in the player list that's a boost,

We have enough content now that this tie breaker should no longer be necessary. We should all propose who we would like to send on mission 1 right now. Obviously things can be amended once we have overhear results, but we need to decide who to give eye to.

roband wrote:I'm a little nervous about posting and making observations on who should go on missions. Obviously I know I'm town, so will be attempting to find the best team possible. Now that I'm potentially suspected, I fear that anyone I feel 'confident' about going on a mission will also be under potential suspicion.

Everyone is potentially suspected and everyone needs to post content. If you make good team proposals then it will reinforce your townyness which will help town win if we know we can trust you. Clamming up only helps the spies.

Having thought things through more I think I'd prefer using Open up on Mpolo or Misnomer. Then send Me Webby and Mpolo/Misnomer on M1 unless we get a spy result then send.. hmm.. no really good choice, ~~I think actually Roband. I feel more like he's simply incompetent rather then scummy. :p~~ Ninja Preedit: Adam H as back up 3rd man.

Ninja'd a bit. Feeling better about Adam H.

Adam H wrote:Eye on you should be used on the same person open up was used on, i think. Assuming the open up comes back town, we need to check the person that claimed another was town.

A) I don't want to give Eye to someone who might easily end up in a spy/town pair like last game. B) I want to give open up to some neutral/scummy and Eye to someone townie.

I agree with most of Adam's other points. Though, your scum/town chat is night useless, I'd like to see some opinions on the neutrals. I know not a lot of content to go on but still.

by **Misnomer** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:24 pm UTC

BoomFrog wrote:
Misnomer wrote:Again, if we can get a team that's adjacent to each other in the player list that's a boost,
We have enough content now that this tie breaker should no longer be necessary. We should all propose who we would like to send on mission 1 right now. Obviously things can be amended once we have overhear results, but we need to decide who to give eye to.

It's not a tie breaker, it's a 'reduce the ability of scum mission leaders to get their buddies on the team' device. And the more I think about it, I'm really not sure we should be doing M1 next. M4 has a better chance of passing, therefore reducing the risk of us not getting the spotlight power until it's useless.

by **mpolo** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:32 pm UTC

M4 is five people, two fails to fail it, right? (It's not explicit in the first post as far as I can tell, but that may be because it's explicit in R2 or R3, and I've been too lazy to verify it. And don't have time right now.

In that case, it is likely an easier mission than M1 (three people, one to fail) and provides more information, simply because two scum have to "out" themselves in order to fail it. Of course, a single scum on that mission would likely pass it so as to blend in.

Tomorrow I should be able to post with more extension.

by **Adam H** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:44 pm UTC

Misnomer wrote:It's not a tie breaker, it's a 'reduce the ability of scum mission leaders to get their buddies on the team' device.

This only matters if we do M4 right? I don't think it's worth it anyways.

Misnomer wrote:That's a bucket load of wine you've splashed about there.

Yeah, I considered not popping the cork, but I have nothing to hide and I think my ideas are rational.

Definitely give opinion maker to scummiest, right? He'll have to vote publicly, so he can't slip in an accepted vote to get a spy on the team. I can clarify if that doesn't seem obvious.

I'm going to be away for the next several days, unfortunately. I'll have limited access to the internet, so I'm sending Jay contingency plans in case I miss a deadline. Here's what I will tell him, so you all know:

Reject any mission proposals that I am not a part of. Reject any mission proposals if it includes EITHER Roband or cjdrum. Reject any mission proposals that include BOTH vectorzero and gopher. Reject vectorzero's mission proposal if KaEoY was not handed out to either myself, webby, or boomfrog. Reject vectorzero's mission proposal if opinion maker was not handed out to cjdrum or roband.

If I get KaEoY, use it on webby. If webby is not part of the mission, use it on boomfrog. If boomfrog is not part of mission, use on vectorzero. Otherwise, don't use it.

If I get open up, open up to webby.

That should cover it, I think. If you have suggestions for other contingencies, say so in the next few hours.

by **webby** » Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:35 pm UTC

I would give opinion maker to whoever you think might otherwise forget to send in their acceptance.

In terms of who's scummy, townie etc., this is actually quite a difficult one. Nobody has been perfectly townie. Boomfrog goes closest, but of everyone else, GoP and VectorZero went on the first mission, and that makes them more likely to be scum from my perspective, especially if I think Boomfrog is townie. Adam H and Lorenz had the odd accusation of me, although I agree that Adam H is doing better now. Then there's cjdrum and roband. The only other players left are Misnomer and mpolo, and Boomfrog points out some slightly scummy things that they've done. I know they've been slightly lurkery, but the pair I feel best about is Misnomer and mpolo, because I think it's only minor things. I recommend one of them opens up, and the other (or Adam H if you think he'd be a better choice) goes on the mission if the result is spy.

There was also the question of mission 1 vs mission 4. I'm not sure really, I'd think both missions would have a reasonably similar chance of passing. Maybe Misnomer is right and things like 'In the Spotlight' are going to be more useful on mission 1 than mission 4, and we should do mission 4 first. I'm going to have to have a think about this.

by **Lorenz** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:37 am UTC

This game is harder to keep track of than I thought. I'm sorry for that. I am currently building python code that will create a network graph according to different posts/actions of persons. Hopefully it'll be done by tomorrow and I can make further analysis.
I haven't been keeping notes also, because of time, which I thought I could handle, but apparently for me no notes = no analysis.

@BoomFrog: Why is it that opinion maker is junk, and should be given to whoever? I think it's a pretty important power. Is this just lack of my understanding of the game?

@webby: I would hardly think my statement was an accusation. I simply noted that your comment also popped up to me. As I already said, I haven't been able to take notes and that was a first impression. I'm not saying it's a wrong impression either, just that I have to go over things again.
I'm seriously hoping tomorrow I can go through all posts taking notes. I promise the day after tomorrow is my limit to have some really nice continuos posts with content.

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:22 am UTC

If we are planning ahead and discussing teams and "soft voting" before the official vote, then the official vote is almost pointless and there should never be any surprises in there. I agree with webby about using Opinion maker on someone like Roband to make sure they are paying attention :p

In my opinion, since we will have 2-3 "likely town" (me, webby, and open up target maybe) we have a real chance at mission 1, but mission 4 is still quite a toss up. I'd rather save mission 4 for when we have 3 confirmedish town and one town/spy pair. Then we can pass it. Basically I'm betting the game that Webby is town, which I'm only like 70% sure of, but I don't have any better reads then that.

by **VectorZero** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:04 pm UTC

To a few people:
I'm VectorZero, not vector. Different person, also plays mafia. VZ is fine.

Boomfrog, Adam H and Misnomer have all made some good points. Before I hand out powers, I do need to reassess the recent arguments (its 11pm and work was crazy today.)

Obviously I'm intending on putting myself on whichever mission I choose, and would hand out powers accordingly. However, we've still got the NC's floating around. What do people want to do? Don't make me shoot myself in the foot.

I'm certainly leaning towards GoP being the spy in the first mission; warrants an analysis.

Adam H wrote:I think we should not waste our time or plot powers with cjdrum. Cj: if you are town, I apologize, but seriously man. Horrific excuse. Roband was away from all forums for an entire week, and I can believe that he couldn't be bothered to look up what the NC meant. There is only ONE reason for you to think he was going to use his NC - which would be if you realized that you BOTH should use your NC. In which case you would have used yours. At least acknowledge that your non-action was stupid.

Re underlined bit ... that's not quite true, but I don't think discussing the idea I have will help town, and I don't think it matters anyway. Cjdrum has to be considered scumdrum until he justifies being copped.

by **cjdrum** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:08 pm UTC

I can use the NC this mission?

by **VectorZero** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:17 pm UTC

That's all you have to say?

by **cjdrum** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:47 pm UTC

What else is there to say?

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:13 pm UTC

VectorZero wrote:Obviously I'm intending on putting myself on whichever mission I choose, and would hand out powers accordingly.

I disagree with this. You and GoP (and cjdrum) are under the most suspicion right now.* Just because you are team leader doesn't give you more then your one vote to decide the team. We should decide a team as a group and then you should propose it wither it has you on it or not. And you should distribute powers according to the group consensus which most people are agreeing to so far as well. Allowing any unilateral decisions helps scum hide the reasons for their actions.

*Side note: AdamH if you put me and webby as town why not put GoP and VZ as likely scum?

Misnomer's last posts have pinged me a bit although it might just be the way he plays... :/ I'd rather Mpolo be the one to open up as he is the most neutral in by book (and I know from experience he is always hard to get a good read on.) Btw Mpolo: what's with the lack of content?

Let's formalize the plan: We give KaCEOY to me, and give Open Up to Mpolo. Mpolo opens up to Webby. Opinion Maker is given to Roband :p ) Does anyone object to this plan and have a good reason?

by **BoomFrog** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:15 pm UTC

Oh yeah and Cjdrum:You can still help town by posting content, trying to scum hunt, and suggesting strategy. Ya know, playing the game? Unless your a spy who's given up, that's fine then just sit out of the discussion.

by **mpolo** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:32 pm UTC

I don't have any objections to that distribution of powers. I'm a little concerned that BoomFrog has essentially declared himself the most trustworthy player, but I see that others have come to that conclusion as well, so I guess I can trust him for now.

by **Misnomer** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:10 pm UTC

I have no problem with that power distribution. I'm a bit nervous of webby being the player opened up to given Adam H's earlier eagerness to personally open up to Webby, but other than myself I don't really have any better suggestion as far as mpolo opening up goes.

by **Lorenz** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:13 pm UTC

@Boomfrog. Thanks, I thought that Open Up also affected your success/sabotage vote.

The only problem I have with that distribution of powers is that it involves 2 people of the first mission, so I would feel better if the webby/mpolo pair is flipped (webby opening up to mpolo). My proposal is this. Have adam or misnomer propose 1 change to your distribution of powers. I'll never feel good with a single person choosing all the powers.

by **jayhsu** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:41 pm UTC

Deadline in 18 hours, though it will probably be more like 22 hours. Submit power allocations and a team by then (preferably submit the powers sooner).

by **VectorZero** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:49 pm UTC

BoomFrog wrote:
VectorZero wrote:Obviously I'm intending on putting myself on whichever mission I choose, and would hand out powers accordingly.
I disagree with this. You and GoP (and cjdrum) are under the most suspicion right now.* Just because you are team leader doesn't give you more then your one vote to decide the team. We should decide a team as a group and then you should propose it wither it has you on it or not. And you should distribute powers according to the group consensus which most people are agreeing to so far as well. Allowing any unilateral decisions helps scum hide the reasons for their actions.

Err... I know I'm town. Therefore the team I propose is townier if I'm in it. Just because you keep saying you're town and everyone else on the first mission team is scummier for it doesn't make it so. I could equally say I'm towniest for proposing a townie plan that didn't get followed and has exposed two people as somewhere on the slack-scummy spectrum. Which would be overstating things.

I'm happy to give opinion maker to roband. I do want to give powers to the more active players, since that would more likely either reveal scum or confirm as town someone who will be around to actually vote...

Thoughts at the moment:
GoP and scumdrum: scummy
roband: not especially scummy for the NC thing. Not townie, however.
Boomfrog: helpful but leading town

How about:
Mission 1:
VZ
webby
Boomfrog
(If using Open Up on GoP. Team subject to change based on power results)

Opinion maker to Roband
Open Up to... (I'm actually leaning GoP here. He's been a bit scummy, and it'll either confirm a scum or give us a surprising townie, which will be very useful in the endgame.)
KaCEOY not sure yet.

by **Misnomer** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:09 pm UTC

VZ, why GoP and not mpolo? And who would you have GoP open up to?

Also, I really think we should be doing mission 4 next, not mission 1...

by **Gopher of Pern** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:21 pm UTC

Big FOS : VZ.

You seem to want me to open up: to me? WTF?

I mostly agree with Boomfrog's plan, only get Mpolo to open up to Misnomer. Don't want too many of mission 1 people in the loop, leaving everyone else out.

by **Lorenz** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:13 am UTC

Ok, so I finally got around to taking notes (which is one step behind analyzing my notes).

Anyway, the 2 files I'm attaching a a trust-network and a distrust-network based on my own assumptions. The bigger your connection in either graph with someone makes me think you trust/don't-trust them. Since the direction goes both ways, a line between 2 players doesn't mean they both mistrust one another. Just one mistrusts the other.
For example, the webby-lorenz distrust connection is on the webby side, not on my side. I probably want to fix the code so the graph shows this kind of behavior.

The bigger your circle, if blue, means more towny.
The bigger your circle, if red, means more scummy.

I'm not sure why webby ended up neutral. I probably added scum points and then town points.

Just to answer a previous accusation. The reason that webby's post on changing the team rang a bell to me mostly because I thought the team was going to be rejected anyways. I now realize that point is moot, because the team was going to remain the same after the consecutive NC. (I'm not 100% that's right, but that's what I understood now)

I agree that M4 is the best choice. I don't want for M1 to go down the hill and have a tough time passing mission 3 and 4.

BF wrote: We give KaCEOY to me, and give Open Up to Mpolo. Mpolo opens up to Webby. Opinion Maker is given to Roband

I'd rather change webby opening up to misnomer, or to someone else. Especially because of the big connection I feel between BF and webby. As I said before, I just don't want one person to take the decision.
I don't know why everyone feels GoP to be scummy, and webby to be so towny. I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't have that strong of an opinion. I may just be biased about webby, for taking my "accusation" so strongly, when it was a remark of no great importance.

Also, if everyone wants me to keep another network that everyone can contribute to, I'll make it, just witch connections, and no scummy/towny. Everyone who posts connection(player1,player2)++
or
connection(player1,player2)--

will add/subtract connection strength.

by **webby** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:56 am UTC

Apologies for going missing, busy day yesterday. I'll try to catch up now.

Firstly, I'm a little suspicious of people who want to make (seemingly) random minor changes to things without apparent good reason. I understand that everyone will have different views on who's scummier etc., but scum are more likely to try and change those little things, just because they can have confidence as to exactly how it will work out.

Secondly, I would have been very suspicious if Boomfrog's proposed idea/team hadn't generated any objections, because that would have meant that the spies were happy with it.

In the mission 1 vs 4 debate, I think that they're about as likely as each other to pass (maybe mission 4 is slightly more likely to pass), but that we get more information from mission 1 if it fails. I think we're past the stage where assuming randomness in teams, spies and resistance has much use, so I'm not going to do the full probabilities, if someone feels it would be enlightening, then go ahead.

VectorZero, I understand that trying to get on the team yourself is the best move whichever alignment you are, but I think we're better off going with a consensus team and rejecting it if you don't propose that team.

In terms of No Confidences, I'm happy to have them used up now, assuming people are happy with Lorenz getting plot powers next.

Boomfrog, I agree with you about mpolo being hard to read.

I wouldn't object to that plan.

I echo Boomfrog's comment about cjdrum still participating in the game.

mpolo, I don't like it either (referring to having to trust Boomfrog so much), but the problem is we don't have the same number of people we can be confident about as we did last game (last game I had Boomfrog, Aardvarki and someone else who slips my mind at the moment) as people I was confident about. This game only Boomfrog even approaches that level of confidence.

Lorenz, I see your problem with one person deciding all the plot powers, but I don't agree that we should avoid mission 1 people - I think I proved that there was very little difference as to what we should think about mission 1 people and non-mission 1 people. I'm not so sure about arbitrarily picking two people to propose a change to the strategy.

VectorZero, I broadly agree with your conclusions. But remember we can't necessarily trust the results of Open Up (except obviously the person opened up to). I agree that GoP has been scummier than mpolo so far this game. However, I think the point was that we were looking for a townie to go on the mission, as opposed to a scum player to be revealed.

Lorenz, you'll have to actually attach the files.

I'm not really a fan of adding and subtracting points like that though, it's hard to say quantitatively how scummy an action is. Connections are always useful though, looking forward to seeing it.

In terms of why I responded so strongly to your remark (and I didn't think it was such a strong response?), is because making a remark like that that just agrees, not adding or explaining anything, is a typical scum move to gain momentum against a townie player. Often there's a tipping point, as once the second or third player agrees, everyone just assumes there must be something to the suspicion. There was also the fact that there was something else that clearly looked scummy that it felt like you were trying to distract from. I've felt slightly better about you since then, but it's still in the back of my mind.

by **BoomFrog** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:58 am UTC

VectorZero wrote:Err... I know I'm town. Therefore the team I propose is townier if I'm in it. Just because you keep saying you're town and everyone else on the first mission team is scummier for it doesn't make it so. I could equally say I'm towniest for proposing a townie plan that didn't get followed and has exposed two people as somewhere on the slack-scummy spectrum. Which would be overstating things.

First, If you propose a team with you on it and no one trusts you then it will get rejected. How is that useful? And btw I will reject any team with you or GoP on it right now. Second, I hope everyone is making thier own judgments. I'm not saying I'm townie "just because" I'm saying it because several people have said it and no one objected (before you) so I assume most people agree.

Lorenz wrote: I don't want for M1 to go down the hill

I don't know what you mean by this. You mean M4 will be easier to pass then M1?

Also I can't see any attachment. Can anyone else?

More later, gtg. (I didn't read the webby Ninja post yet)

by **VectorZero** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:06 am UTC

Gopher of Pern wrote:Big FOS : VZ.

You seem to want me to open up: to me? WTF?

I mostly agree with Boomfrog's plan, only get Mpolo to open up to Misnomer. Don't want too many of mission 1 people in the loop, leaving everyone else out.

No, I want to give you Open Up. Who you choose to open up to is just as useful information.

by **Lorenz** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:58 am UTC

Woops. I forgot to re-add the attachments. Got logged out while posting.
Here they are.

by **Lorenz** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:13 am UTC

Secondly, I would have been very suspicious if Boomfrog's proposed idea/team hadn't generated any objections, because that would have meant that the spies were happy with it.

That assumes that everyone trusts BoomFrog 100%. I trust BoomFrog, but not enough to let him make the full decision. On the other hand, if BoomFrog is spy, of course the other spies will be happy with his decision. If BoomFrog is town but picks something good for the spies, they will of course agree. So I don't approve of your logic.

In the mission 1 vs 4 debate, I think that they're about as likely as each other to pass (maybe mission 4 is slightly more likely to pass), but that we get more information from mission 1 if it fails. I think we're past the stage where assuming randomness in teams, spies and resistance has much use, so I'm not going to do the full probabilities, if someone feels it would be enlightening, then go ahead.

I also think mission 4 is more likely to pass now. But once we can actually 3 people enough, M1 is a sure pass. I don't know why you would want to give that away.

Lorenz, I see your problem with one person deciding all the plot powers, but I don't agree that we should avoid mission 1 people - I think I proved that there was very little difference as to what we should think about mission 1 people and non-mission 1 people. I'm not so sure about arbitrarily picking two people to propose a change to the strategy.

I'm not saying not to pick mission 1 people. I just don't like a mission 1 persons being on the other end of the open up. Maybe I should re-frase that. I don't want YOU on the other end of the open up, being chosen by BoomFrog.

In terms of why I responded so strongly to your remark... is a typical scum move...

You are right. I was posting as little as I could before truly getting in the game, and didn't really think how it could look on the other end.

I don't know what you mean by this. You mean M4 will be easier to pass then M1?

What I mean is that M1 will be much more easier to pass with a tiny bit of more information. A little more information will make a difference in M4, but not as much a difference as M1.

by **Lorenz** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:16 am UTC

EBWOP: Also, I want to clarify the graph are just MY take on things. They don't represent an actual network of the actions that have been taken, which is why I suggested a way for all of us to contribute, and end up with a less subjective network.
Also, every connection would have to be explained, and not be done behind the scenes like mine are. (Of course, I keep notes of every change I make, so feel free to question anything on mine)

by **webby** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:29 am UTC

Lorenz, I don't think you quite got a couple of my points. I wasn't saying anything stronger than the following:
If Boomfrog had proposed a team that was good for town, I would expect some protests, while if he was town and proposed a team that, while based on good logic, favoured spies, I would expect few or no protests. Therefore, if there wasn't any disagreement, I would expect that the team was bad for town.

I don't understand your point about mission 1 vs mission 4, can you clarify please?

Yes, I understand that it would be best to spread the decisions out as much as possible (within reason), as long as we have enough people we have reason to believe are more townie than average.

In terms of your trust/distrust network, I'm not quite convinced. One problem is that as more information comes to light, our opinions on players will obviously change - do you delete old opinions? And there are problems involved with how different players play the game. Rather than say 'Player A is scum', I'm much more likely to work in relative terms, and also in terms of connections, so I'll say things like 'Player A is scummier than Player B', or 'If Player C turns out to be scum, I will be suspicious of Player D'. Is there a way for your network to take this into account? I think that's why there are so few connections for me on the distrust side. I think there are also a lot of missing connections - for example it was made reasonably clear that I didn't trust cjdrum and roband and that I distrust them more than I distrust(ed) you.

by **webby** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:36 am UTC

And another weird thing, why is GoP so townie on your map? I don't think he's done anything to justify that.

by **Lorenz** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:17 am UTC

If Boomfrog had proposed a team that was good for town, I would expect some protests, while if he was town and proposed a team that, while based on good logic, favoured spies, I would expect few or no protests. Therefore, if there wasn't any disagreement, I would expect that the team was bad for town.

OK, that I agree with. No protests probably mean good for scum. Having protest however, can be either scum or town.

My point on M1 vs M4 is the following.
we can afford to send 2 spies to M4, so with less information, it is still probable to pass. So lets say we have 5 player, A, B, C, D and E.
We are pretty sure A B and C are town, and have mixed feelings of D and E. We send them all to M4, but player A was really tricking us. We still have the chance of D and E being town.
I guess I'm just concerned that, with the little I've played, there always at least one scum that seems very towny at first. Having that cushion of the double fail feels better. Once we can REALLY trust 3 persons, or at least have some more confidence, M1 will sound right to me.
I know that's a very specific example, but I see it working better in general. I'm not saying that I disapprove of M1 right now.

Yes, on MY network, everything has notes as to why every decision is taken. Whenever something makes sense out of new information, I don't delete the previous one, I simply add enough to compensate on the other side, that way I don't lose notes. If necessary, I add more to that other side.
As for the relative part, I simply add more points on the ones you think are scummier, seeing from my perspective of things how many points that comment deserves. This is a very subjective way to do it, but it's what I have for now.

The other problem that it has, and for now this is the BIGGEST problem, is that the connections are bidirectional, so if you say you distrust me, and I say I trust you, there's going to be no connection. I am thinking of a way to change this. As for the other missing connections, thanks for pointing them out, I'll look into it. As this was done on a single go while going through all posts, it's quite possible that I missed some.

As for GoP, ze is not THAT towny. Has only received two half points. (One of which was for sticking to the plan which... comparing to the other reasons I've given is bad. I will actually remove that half point, but it makes not much difference). Basically, nobody is too much on the towny side. Also, ALL connections are really small right now.
As I keep analyzing and correcting, it will grow into something that makes more sense.

For the one where we could all contribute, it was just an idea, that at I understand has its problems, but could still be useful.

by **roband** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:38 am UTC

I'm happy enough to vote first and publically. It was one slip guys, for those of you suggesting I might need the help remembering

We need to decide if we're using the NCs or not, or what the plan is with them.

by **VectorZero** » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:46 am UTC

Lorenz wrote:
If Boomfrog had proposed a team that was good for town, I would expect some protests, while if he was town and proposed a team that, while based on good logic, favoured spies, I would expect few or no protests. Therefore, if there wasn't any disagreement, I would expect that the team was bad for town.

OK, that I agree with. No protests probably mean good for scum. Having protest however, can be either scum or town.

My point on M1 vs M4 is the following.
we can afford to send 2 spies to M4,

No. We can only afford to send 1 spy to M4. It may be that we gain good information from sending two, however.

BoomFrog wrote:
VectorZero wrote:Err... I know I'm town. Therefore the team I propose is townier if I'm in it. Just because you keep saying you're town and everyone else on the first mission team is scummier for it doesn't make it so. I could equally say I'm towniest for proposing a townie plan that didn't get followed and has exposed two people as somewhere on the slack-scummy spectrum. Which would be overstating things.
First, If you propose a team with you on it and no one trusts you then it will get rejected. How is that useful? And btw I will reject any team with you or GoP on it right now.

I could make the same argument about you (or webby.) I will point out that if the up-to-three townies from the first mission insist on rejecting any mission with one of the others, we're fucked. You're effectively holding me to ransom here. You thought I was town last game. Don't overcompensate.

Who is online