Werewolf CXCVII: Chopin

[Gen. Marshall]

If Rovsea changes from being a wolf to zealot night to night.

No, since Rovsea was an unknown, the seerish scan increases the probability of netting Ithvan a baddie, since Rovsea could have been a wolf (in which case the Priestly scan would have returned naught).

You're the moron here. It's not so difficult for understand that someone hitting just a ZEALOT when that's the only baddie he could get with a SINGLE PRIEST POWER is really difficult.

Priestly powers also get cultists.

 

[k-59]

You're the moron here. It's not so difficult for understand that someone hitting just a ZEALOT when that's the only baddie he could get with a SINGLE PRIEST POWER is really difficult with so many players alive.

Do you even know what independent probability means?

 

[madchemist]

It's Super Bowl Sunday and I have the Broncos to watch. Has anything meaningful happened?

 

[DeathNoteForCutie]

You're the moron here. It's not so difficult for understand that someone hitting just a ZEALOT when that's the only baddie he could get with a SINGLE PRIEST POWER is really difficult.

He could have also scanned a cultist or sorc, so not sure why you're getting so bent out of shape that he hit a zealot and saying that it'd be difficult to hit a zealot. You should look at his chance to scan any type of baddie he could.

 

[De Chatillôn]

I found your criticism of Ithvan unrealistic to start with. So, when you changed your mind to my view I agreed with you. But you did changed how you were viewing probabilities.

Do you know what's the probability of someone hitting a zealot beetwen 30 players alive?

 

[De Chatillôn]

He could have also scanned a cultist or sorc, so not sure why you're getting so bent out of shape that he hit a zealot and saying that it'd be difficult to hit a zealot. You should look at his chance to scan any type of baddie he could.

I don't trust anybody easily.

 

[al-Aziz]

Of course not, the probability of Ithvan hitting a zealot with so many players alive only with a priestly power was very very low. After when I knew he used a priestly scan and a seerish scan it was more likely and not so improbable. After Cutie's post I was really convinced.

Why would hitting a zealot be more likely if you used two different scans, not one? The set up is still the same.

You randomly pick a player to both seerish scan and priestly scan. Any zealot would not show up with a seer scan, obviously. Any zealot would show up on a priestly scan.

If you already precommitted to scanning using both types, it's not more likely for you to get a zealot if you use both scans since the randomly picked person already has a role and you are not altering what you do based on what happened before. (Of course, if you didn't already know the result of the priest scan but did know the seer scan, you are more likely to get a zealot because some roles are eliminated. But precommitting to using two types of scan doesn't make it more likely for you to get a zealot.)

Anyway, you didn't think this out very well, I don't think, but whether that makes you wolfish or just wrong is up in the air. Your rapid and arbitrary shift to trust makes me think wolf.

 

[k-59]

No, since Rovsea was an unknown, the seerish scan increases the probability of netting Ithvan a baddie, since Rovsea could have been a wolf (in which case the Priestly scan would have returned naught).

In the same way that a full seer is more likely to find one wolf over the course of the game than someone with seerish powers is. But on any given night one scan has the same chance of being positive as any other scan of the same sort, no matter what other scans the player has made before.

 

[k-59]

@DeathNoteForCutie and @al-Aziz you are proof women are better at math

 

[al-Aziz]

Do you know what's the probability of someone hitting a zealot beetwen 30 players alive?

Sometimes, unlikely things happen.

I don't trust anybody easily.

Except for the time when you trusted DNC's word almost immediately.

 

[De Chatillôn]

In the same way that a full seer is more likely to find one wolf over the course of the game than someone with seerish powers is. But on any given night one scan has the same chance of being positive as any other scan of the same sort, no matter what other scans the player has made before.

I didn't say he hadn't the same chance of being positive. I said it was difficult to hit a zealot with only ONE power so early because we were a lot of players still alive.

 

[al-Aziz]

@DeathNoteForCutie and @al-Aziz you are proof women are better at math

And this post is proof that economists are terrible at statistics.

 

[madchemist]

So DC hasn't responded to my charges and has been trying to cast doubt on Ithvan for outing a zealot? OK then. Cool. My vote stays.

 

[De Chatillôn]

Sometimes, unlikely things happen.

Except for the time when you trusted DNC's word almost immediately.

Sure, and I didn't say that couldn't be possible, I only said that we should confirm.

For the second question, I didn't trust DNC so blindly, what I trusted is that I don't think any wolfpack would have so much members exposed.

 

[Gen. Marshall]

In the same way that a full seer is more likely to find one wolf over the course of the game than someone with seerish powers is. But on any given night one scan has the same chance of being positive as any other scan of the same sort, no matter what other scans the player has made before.

Yes, of course. I'd love to think that's what De Chat is saying as well... in some twisted way

 

[Canadian_95_RTS]

I didn't say he hadn't the same chance of being positive. I said it was difficult to hit a zealot with only ONE power so early because we were a lot of players still alive.

Difficult, not impossible.

 

[k-59]

And this post is proof that economists are terrible at statistics.

No it's proof we are great that making general conclusions from unrepresentative samples.

 

[De Chatillôn]

Difficult, not impossible.

I didn't say ANYTHING about being impossible. I said we should be cautious before we could confirm it. That's everything I said.

 

[Audren]

It's Super Bowl Sunday and I have the Broncos to watch. Has anything meaningful happened?

Not really; probability is tough.

Do you know what's the probability of someone hitting a zealot beetwen 30 players alive?

Roughly 6%, assuming one zealot per pack and two packs (not unreasonable assumptions, I think). For comparison, assuming we only started with one sorcerer, the probability of hunting that sorcerer is roughly 3% (assuming just a single starting sorcerer, and assuming roughly 5 people per pack; pure guesswork). Yet that also happened. I don't like how you're using probability to cast doubt on a JL spokesman, nor do I like your strange halfway walking back of it.

UNVOTE DADARIAN
VOTE DE CHATILLON

 

[DeathNoteForCutie]

So my thoughts, so far. Outing the council has only seemed to cause lots of empty conversation about whether or not it was good idea. The Dadarian lynch seems silly to me. I haven't been super active and he didn't seem to be reading that closely, so going after him for that vote seems lazy and as far as I understand that's most the case on him. k-59 hasn't set me off too much, what's the case on him exactly? I'll try to find it but if someone can summarize it, then it'd be great. De Chat has been setting me of the most, he's been acting strange for the past two days and his erratic response to pressure isn't helping him. Also his defense seems to come down to "I wouldn't do that" which is silly because let's be honest, how many of us really believe that we're acting like a baddie when we're a baddie? It's not really a good defense, you can claim you wouldn't do anything, doesn't mean it's true or not.

Vote De Chat

Also keep in mind that De Chat isn't voting k-59, so me pushing him one ahead is basically a tie situation.