Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

Well, no, you shouldn't have...

[TheBiggerFish]

It could be you, too.

[TheBiggerFish]

Name?

[hector13]

I'm Special. Someone's lying.

Well yes, but who?

I claimed special, and what came with it. What are you claiming with your special role?

[hector13]

Also re: role distribution: nothing to say there aren't two special and two weakness roles.

[TheBiggerFish]

Though it's interesting that there's no investigator at all in that case...

[hector13]

Though it's interesting that there's no investigator at all in that case...

Starver was the one to bring it up first. Interesting...

[hector13]

@Hector:

Politician. I can 'cower', which makes all votes against me the next day do nothing. It's a day action.

Why do people use invistext to make a fucking claim!? Pointless. Stupid.

It's like you want to hide it or something.

[Starver]

I must say, I have my feelings, but I thought I'd do a bit of mathematics while things were quiet, earlier today.  So I ran through the various possibilities, and although I included "double-somethings" (excluded only triples, quadruples and quintruples, leaving 2221 'basic' assumptions), I then immediately started to discount "two or more double-somethings" (leaving 1321).  I may need to rethink if we're allowed more than a single double.

Although my heart says that it's either a double-Weak and one of the Specials is lying or double-Special and one of the Weaks is.  Probably not both, though, unless it's a double-Evil taking (coordinated or not) different approaches.

Not that lying is a bad thing.  Maybe they're lying to protect themselves (from the bad-guy(s)), maybe the other reason.

Anyway, until Moonlit made that claim, I'd narrowed it down to two 'most likely' role-distributions.  One of which had no Evils at all!  (Is that more or less Paranoia Fuel material?)

Now I've just reassessed on Moonlit's claim (but still betting against double-doubles) and...  Now there's nine 'most likely' possibilities (averaged likelihoods >1/3rd, although that's a quite a bit arbitrary), with a whole lot of mix-up from the last time.  And five, still, with no Evil role!  But I've obviously used some bad weightings (I've always plugged in my own known role as 100%, but I've had to assume a suitable spread of possibilities for everyone else), because Moonlit's claim to being Special and Fallacy's claim to being Weak goes unopposed in this top sample, whilst Fish's and Hector's versions aren't and it even suggests that Hector's twice as likely to be Neutral than Special!  I need to do it again, so I know what to do about it.

Anyway, the above is too meta, and maybe too flawed.  I was hoping to make my life easier for the (currently) blind vote, ahead of any information gained overnight by the person who can test for this sort of thing.  I'm highly tempted to not vote anyone at all.  Especially if we're not fighting Evil but fighting ourselves.


NotAnEdit: Three new messages, whilst I was getting that in!  And, on the recent subject, I could imagine there being a use for Invisitext, not that I plan to use it myself, but no use using Invisitext *whilst saying Invisitext is being used!*  We're all going to want to read it, if we know it's there.  -  And if we don't know it's there, but find it 'prematurely' anyway?  What if it's the Big Bad who finds it, and nobody else?

[TheBiggerFish]

How are you doing this math?

[Starver]

How are you doing this math?

Probably badly.

It rests on weighted possibilities for each possibility (not excluding any roles, for anyone, except in my own case), which of course rely on me having the right instincts about which actual weightings to apply (not just "half a chance that a given claim/suggestion is correct", etc).

I'm only doing it because nothing much else was going on, earlier on today, and I had such success in Round 1 with working out the likelihoods of who was actually telling the untruth (with a far simpler distribution... the original non-repeating role-list and only four players, for a start!).  But, IIRC, I already had quite a bit more information by the point I did that.  This one's still too blind to work with (and nowhere near conclusive enough to suggest to you that "X is true, Y is false", etc).  I only really mentioned it in passing, as everyone was already wondering about the subject.

Wondering if I've put myself in the firing line for tonight, though.  Hoping it's a non-Nightkill scenario, once more.

[hector13]

You've also yet to make a claim

[Starver]

You've also yet to make a claim

Not flat-out, no.  But I don't trust flat-out claims, myself.  I'm aiming to prove my worth empirically, but I can't do that yet.

[hector13]

You've also yet to make a claim

Not flat-out, no.  But I don't trust flat-out claims, myself.  I'm aiming to prove my worth empirically, but I can't do that yet.

Your reticence to share information with the town is disconcerting.

[Starver]

Your reticence to share information with the town is disconcerting.

I find 'oversharing' to be disconcerting.  Especially with the double 'double-claims'.  Should I mistrust the quick-to-claim more than their direct challengers who do so knowing exactly what they're letting themselves in for?  Or are the latter (or at least one of them) playing along with the obvious suspicions?

And I have shared information with the town, what I find it wise to say, but necessarily I've also been sharing with whatever enemy there is.  I'm hoping that Town is cleverer than the Enemy, and knows when not to recklessly blurt out what I've decided to not yet say myself.

Meanwhile, I don't like reckless claims like "If you vote for me, I won't know you've done it!" and might assume that there's some deeper truth behind that claim which I might more (or less!) respect, but maybe won't know for sure about until later.  I then have to consider whether to make a claim that would appear similarly reckless (and, at the same time, work out if it's worth risking the well-being of allies on my own unsubstantiated hunches).