Votes:

Random Lynch: Niklor, Zinger2099, Ragnarokio (3)
Niklor: KoD, True_Believer (2)
True_Believer: GobO_Scarlet (1)
Ragnarokio: 15377 (1)
No vote: NeoSilk, Silly, squinty_eyes, Garren_Windspear, Fruit (5)

Unvote, Vote: Rag

I'm going to have to go with Numbers here. Rag, the faulty arguments and misrepresentation you are putting forth for random lynch does make you a good day 1 lynch as far as I am concerned.

Votes:

Random Lynch: Niklor, Zinger2099, Ragnarokio (3)
Ragnarokio: 15377, KoD (2)
Niklor: True_Believer (1)
True_Believer: GobO_Scarlet (1)
No vote: NeoSilk, Silly, squinty_eyes, Garren_Windspear, Fruit (5)

If this were true, the success rate of day 1 lynches in the past would be expected to be closer to 3/11, or 27%. The reason this isn't true is because you're looking at random votes instead of random lynches as this game provides. If a town member votes for a random player aside from themself, it has a 27% chance of hitting scum. Scum won't vote for themselves or their allies though. If they all vote for random townies then the chance of scum being lynched falls below 25%. The random lynch option is stronger because it effectively overrides scums votes, allowing for a true random lynch.

This is also the reason the successful day 1 lynch rate is worse than random. When the town has little evidence to go on day 1, there vote usually is essentially random. The mafia does have evidence to go on though. They know who not to vote for. The mafia starts with an information advantage over the town and can sway the lynch more easily than the town can. As the game progresses, you gain access to voting records, alignment information, roleclaims, and so forth. The town becomes more and more informed in comparison to the mafia, and their voting becomes more and more informed. The mafia knowing each others alignments becomes less of an advantage and they can't control the lynch as effectively. Depending on the game the chance of mafia being lynched could quickly become better than random as the town actually has things to go off of. On day 1 they remain weak, however.



[/quote]

You're contradicting yourself. You suggest that a no lynch is different from a random lynch because it ends up saving silly, and then say that trying to save silly via random lynch is a null tell because KoD simply could have ended up preferring a random lynch over a silly lynch as town.

Your logic also applies to virtually any last-minute switch of vote. Check this example:

Silly and Numbers are competing wagons at the end of the day. At the last minute, KoD switches from Silly to Numbers, resulting in Numbers being lynched. What can we actually deduce from such a switch? Not much. KoD and Silly could be scum mates, with KoD unvoting Silly because of the belief that Silly would survive. But! KoD could be town who simply become doubtful about his current reasons for voting Silly, and switched to Numbers. But! KoD could be town or scum who has simply chosen to unvote but sees that just unvoting isn't going to stop a Numbers lynch and so resigns to fate and piles on a vote anyways.

There are always many reasons that a person could switch wagons at the last minute. In the case that the person who was saved by the last minute switch ends up flipping scum, one of those reasons starts to look a lot more valid. This is true whether you're switching to no-lynch, random lynch, or a third party. Random lynch might only reduce the chance of scum dying to 25%, but compared to 100% it is still a no-brainer decision to make as scum.

You're still trying to apply the probability of a situation to the success rate, which has no actual correlation. The probability of something happen is just the possibility. This is unaffected by the actual success rate no matter how many sample games you compile. If you have a 25% possibility of doing something, that doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen 25% of the time. That's not what probability is about. So it remains a fact that each decisive town vote has a higher probability of hitting scum than a random vote, thus making decisive voting the stronger play for town to make on an individual basis. Now if you want to talk total numbers, it's a simple risk vs reward scenario. There's a 25% chance scum will be lynched. There's a 75% chance town will be lynched. Probability dictates that it is far more likely for town to be lynched than scum in a random vote. There's a high risk of random voting as town. There's very little reward. It's not a cost effective move in terms of shear numbers and gets worse as you consider potential role loss. All things considered, that's not a strong move for town to make. Now throw into the mix that decisive voting factors in additional information from voting and discourse but most importantly gives town a chance to rectify a mistake in terms of a lynch candidate having time to claim and possibly avoid potential serious town loss of role, which random gives no option of.

As for the information situation, it doesn't apply to any other situation, because in those situations Silly is not lynched. In the example I provided I specifically address the possibility that Silly could still be lynched during that specific lynch and the lack of accountability tied to voting Random. These are the distinct differences that set Random apart from every other lynch. In the event that Silly is saved by a KoD no lynch vote, we have evidence that KoD chose to save Silly rather than see Silly die. Nobody else was lynched in Silly's place. That fact lends more credence to the notion that KoD was actively trying to save Silly as opposed to simply becoming disillusioned with his own vote, as simply unvoting would have accomplished removing his disillusioned vote without the extra step of ensuring Silly's life. Unlike this, voting Random doesn't guarantee Silly lives, there's still the possibility that Silly dies. But that extra mile is the accountability that a random vote denies. KoD is actively making it harder for the rest of the players to kill Silly at that point. Your example presents a similar situation, but adds the dynamic that KoD actively choose to kill another player over Silly, again bringing accountability into the mix. This information can then later be added into the other actions KoD has taken and used to psychoanalyze which outcome is the more probable. Conversely Random voting just mucks the waters and undermines psychoanalysis further down the line - which was my point, less usable inferior information.

Rag, one thing mafia don't want town having is information.

Guess what? A random lynch provides little information to town. Exactly what the mafia would want as opposed to town having interactions/reads to draw upon. Without established patterns/thoughts, there is no way for town to piece together the necessary information to help with catching scum.

So what if mafia can sway the lynch? That requires them to get involved. Which is what we want. Active players that participate so we can get reads. Information. Etc.

And besides, mafia can't completely influence the lynch. It is entirely possible, like in games where a scum was lynched during D1, for a lynch to go a way they would not like. In those situations, scum have to do something to help save their buddy or just let him die (in Febb's case) which is good for town no matter what.

Either way, your perspective is wrong on this with random lynching.

I'm finding your paragraphs rather fluffy so I'm only responding to what I find to be the meat of your ideas. If there's something specific I missed that you want me to address feel free to bring it up.



Of course not. But if you do something with a 25% possibility of success, you are more likely to succeed than if you do something with an 18% possibility of success. Probability of an outcome succeeding and the rate at which the outcome succeeds correlate. Denying that would be denying the basic nature of probability. And its because of that correlation that we can say the 18% figure is accurate within a margin of error. If we succeeded 18% of the time in the past, then the odds of success are around 18%.



This is a valid point and I'm surprised you didn't make it until now.



If KoD's vote switch is responsible for Silly not being lynched, then KoD saved silly no matter how you look at it. Whether someone else died, nobody died, or a random player died, KoD's actions save silly's life. He can't abandon accountability for that action no matter what the opposing wagon is.



For you maybe. I'm perfectly capable of psychoanalysing it and I would hope most people would be similar.

The significance in mafia being able to sway the lynch is that it causes the success rate of a day 1 lynch to be less than random. There are of course situations where it won't work, but its enough to sink the success rate below 25% (or whatever the random rate might be in a given game).

I understand that mafia can sway the lynch, and that's exactly the point being made against a random lynch. Random lynch has no one to be held responsible along with nothing to be looked back on in later days. Direct voting does.

And all things being equal, there is no guarantee that mafia can even sway the lynch. Let alone sway it without getting involved (which is what we want).

The information aspect is another argument that I have covered in other posts, but I thought that you were more concerned with whether or not the random lynch had a higher chance of hitting scum than a traditional lynch?

oh **** that color is really light.

VOTE NIKLOR

Trying to kill me is one thing, but trying to blind me, sir.

YOU GO TOO FAR!!!

Unvote; Vote: Silly

My god you people did a lot of talking while I was away. Alright, might as well continue my vote from the setup thread:

Vote: KoD

~SE++

Once again, that's completely not how probability works. Let's put it in real world sports principals, because it's college game day. Let's say you have a football team that's undefeated this season. They've won their past eight games. Their record of success is 100%. According to you the odds that they'll win their next game is 100%, making it impossible for them to lose. This is obviously not going to be the case. Just as in this games, each meeting on the field is a different experience bringing different challenges. This is a point KoD has already made. As I said before, probability doesn't care how many times you've succeeded previously, there's no correlation in that manner. Your continued insistence to the contrary isn't going to make it so just because you keep doing it.



Is it? The premise is that Random and Silly are tied. The premise is not that Silly is leading the lynch by one vote and that switch by KoD from Silly to Random results in Random leading the lynch by one vote. KoD's actions at no point in the premise dictate that Silly is not lynched when it was otherwise a sure thing. The information presented is not able to assign any accountability in the matter, as the exact circumstances would need to be analyzed before you could say he was accountable. Insisting otherwise is just as effective as shouting, "I'm right" then plugging your ears and NaNaNa'ing so you can't hear your surroundings. This does not change the fact that, at its base, random voting negates accountability though.



For everybody. Psychoanalysis isn't picking wild speculation and running with it. You need hard facts to logic from. Random voting does not create those as people are not required to case and will be taking no responsibility for the outcome of who is lynched. Anybody random voting isn't even required to say anything the rest of the day because they can just hide behind the "strength" of a random vote. But let's case study, Mr I can psychoanalyze thin air. Everybody (use the current roster for this exercise) votes random vote day 1. Nobody talks about anything else the rest of the day. Pick anybody you want to die. Probability says they are town. Assume they have a basic role (nothing too powerful). Tell me who the scum team is at the beginning of day 2, assume nobody has any abilities to claim and another basic town died overnight.

No Rag, I'm concerned with the whole topic. Concerning just the probabilities, a random lynch doesn't have a higher chance of succeeding. You can talk about factors such as mafia ***trying*** to control the lynch or other such minor things, but in the end a lynch conducted by rng is worse. There's no way to argue otherwise.

1. A random lynch is worse because, and I thank Numbers for this, you are allowing yourself to be a potential victim of the random lynch.

2. A random lynch is worse because it generates less information than a normal lynch. This is due to the lack of responsibility having to be taken with a person's death at the hands of rng.

3. A random lynch is worse because it is a way for mafia to hide akin to hiding among inactive/lurking players.

- A sub-point of this is that people don't have to interact with a random lynch. So outside of arguing about a random lynch, a player need do nothing more than would be typical for a mafia game.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

At this point it is readily apparent you don't share the same perspective though. Why you think random lynching is better than direct lynching is beyond me since it was shown not to be true. At best, it is similar in probability to voting directly. At worst, it falls short by a few % since with direct voting you are not entertaining lynching yourself (Numbers has explained this in a perfectly understandable way). Not only that, but pulling up an 18% success rate and saying that is the probability for lynching scum on day 1 for us is just flat out wrong. You're already accused of literally trying to misrepresent things in that respect (by saying this 18% is our probability of lynching scum while rng will be better at 25% despite the fact that, with a valid example of the dice, rng has a success rate of 18% as well).

There's literally no reason to argue with you about it since you cannot backup your argument with valid points that actually hold up to numbers and conventional logic.

Votes:

Random Lynch: Zinger2099, Ragnarokio (2)
Ragnarokio: 15377, KoD (2)
Niklor: True_Believer, Silly (2)
True_Believer: GobO_Scarlet (1)
Silly: Niklor (1)
KoD: squinty_eyes (1)
No vote: NeoSilk, Garren_Windspear, Fruit (3)

You should do some talking.

There has to be stuff to mention besides "wow there was a lot of discussion".

I am fishing for claims, not exactly roles, that later could be useful for comparison.

I agree 100% with Ragnarokio, but I want some claims first. So nothing against you, on contrary, those that started the game voting random lynch as far I am concerned are probably comedy with lesser roles.

I believe those fiercely against a random lynch are mafia or comedy with power roles.

But the fishier ones are those that did not take a stand until this point.

That said for reasons already stated.

Vote: Ragnarokio

As I cannot edit.

Unvote

Vote: Ragnarokio