Total posts: 4,276
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I also have an alternative strategy for claiming shows: everyone does it at once. We all find an online clock, paste our shows in the thread, and at the exact same second (as it strikes 7 oclock EST, for example), we hit enter, submitting our characters to the thread. Scum have no time to look for competing claims to see what's taken.
Does this violate the spirit of the rules? If it does, I'll forget it.
Created:
Posted in:
One thing I want to note really quick. 3 scum vs 8 town is worse odds for town compared to a 9v2 setup. To achieve balance, I suspect that town roles are overall more powerful than scum roles, and we should therefore force role claims very sparingly. Hypocrite since I want to force a claim out of WF, I know, but that's very much the exception and not the rule in this setup.
Created:
Posted in:
I also have an alternative strategy for claiming shows: everyone does it at once. We all find an online clock, paste our shows in the thread, and at the exact same second (as it strikes 7 oclock EST, for example), we hit enter, submitting our characters to the thread. Scum have no time to look for competing claims to see what's taken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
@Mikal
@WyIted
@Casey_Risk
I'm more inclined to get a claim from WF at the moment than from inactives, just given my read on him. If he's scum, he'll probably have a good fake claim, but at least it locks him in early. Lmk if you're fine going that route.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I thought you said mafia had questions?
What post is this referring to? Just keeping notes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Heads up first trivia question will be posted in 3 hours, or at 8pm est.
I'm guessing we can't look up the answer?
Created:
Posted in:
Actually 2 games where he played as town, but you get the idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
VTL Austin
Gonna need to see some posts from you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
he may be upping his game due to the tournament he was just in and renewed excitement so the try heading is t giving him a pass for me
Sure, but why does it make you scum read me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
What are you doing? We are 3 pages in. I appreciate the effort but hopefully these aren't hard reads this early on.
They're not. The probabilities are all very close to 70%.
What decade did your show originally air?
2000s.
Created:
Posted in:
One note I should add is that most posts so far have been towny, which slightly increases the probability of non posters being scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@AustinL0926
@WyIted
@Casey_Risk
@Moozer325
See above
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@ILikePie5
@Mharman
@Mikal
@iamanabanana
Reads List 1.0
Each player is assigned an estimated probability of being town based on how towny or scummy they are. The average probability of being town starts at 70%, since there are 7 town players besides me and 3 scum players. Hence, even a player with scummy behavior can have >50% odds of being town (in fact, early on, they usually do).
Based on a Python simulation that may or may not be accurate, each eliminated player generally needs to be more likely scum than not (even slightly better than 50%) for town to have the advantage. This is harder than it sounds, because each individual player has a high default probability of being town. But it should be easier in later phases of the game. (This is not to suggest no-lynching, of course, which usually hurts town even more than an uncertain lynch.)
One interesting fact is that small, consistent differences actually matter a lot more than you’d expect. If each eliminated player has 60% odds of being scum, town has a 68% win rate. If each eliminated player has 40% odds of being scum, town has a 32% win rate.
iamanabanana
- Lean Town (74%)
- #7 - LT - Posting early draws attention, and I don’t think scum would be inclined to do so without a joke or something to justify the post, seem natural, etc.
- #33, #41 - T - I don’t see scum Banana coming out and giving info about her role without being asked. She’s played a few games, so it’s possible for this to be a tactic, but I think scum wouldn’t play this risky.
iLikePie5
- Lean Town (74%)
- #48, #49, #51 - LT - I like that Pie’s first posts are immediately about the game, no attempts to gain cred just through agreeableness.
- #55 - T - This feels like a town slip. Pie doesn’t realize scum have only one fake claim. Could be a scum play to feign ignorance, but Pie is a fast and instinctive player, that kind of strategy wouldn’t fit his MO.
Mikal
- Lean Town (73.5%)
- #16 - LT - An early post where the vote seems more substantive than for “joke” reasons, even if the goal is just to get someone’s attention, it’s not presented alongside a quip.
- #18, #25, #27 - LT - Ticking off another player like this would be an odd move coming from scum. Really I only see it biasing people against Mikal, hence I’m inclined to town read it. WIFOM, I know, but I just don’t see Mikal banking on being town read for being annoying.
- #34, #57 - LT - I like that Mikal is taking the lead, however he was already making some bold moves challenging WF so this doesn’t change my read too much
- #36, #38 - LT - Confronting another player out the gate is good, and Mikal is asking something I was curious about as well. This is pro-town at the very least.
Earth
- Lean Town (71%)
- #35 - LT - For an infrequent poster, drawing attention early without a need comes across as more instinctive to town than to scum.
Mharman
- Lean Town (71%)
- #60, #61 - LT - Strategizing that doesn’t give off any red flags. There’s a question posed to Pie that could be manipulative but seems more like an attempt to get a read, and I like that. Don’t know that scum would have thought to do that.
AustinL0926
- Null (69%)
Moozer325
- Null (69%)
Casey_Risk
- Null (69%)
Wylted
- Lean Scum (65.5%)
- #3 - LS - I know it’s WIFOM, but if this post is alignment indicative (not convinced it is), I think the intent is to appear unafraid of gaining attention and hence towny, especially since WyIted is usually given a pass for such posts. Which in turn makes it a strategic move for scum.
- #45 - LS - I don’t love that WyIted immediately qualifies his claim with a fun fact about reality shows. If he gave that information separately, it would be fine, but I think that when people are being deceptive or discussing information they don’t want revealed, they have a tendency to immediately answer the question and then change the subject.
whiteflame
- Lean Scum (64%)
- #16 - LS - With WF it’s always difficult to tell, but starting the game with something unrelated to this particular game seems more aimed at gaining town cred through camaraderie.
- #17, #21, #23 - LS - I understand WF’s frustration here, I really do, but their reasons for refusing Mikal aren’t framed from a game strategy perspective. The case could be made that Mikal’s strategy does work for reading WF, and WF only challenges it out of personal distaste.
- #28 - LS - After being pressured, I think this post could be made to change the subject, which WF can get away with because of Mikal’s brash demeanor, and the formalities beside the vote could be meant to ensure the vote isn’t met with hostility. I think town would be more inclined to pressure other players, while scum would be more inclined to befriend them
- #32 - LT - WF complimenting Mikal’s strategy like this actually strikes me as more towny than scummy. It’s WF, and he could easily be thinking that giving credence to Mikal here is the towny move; however, I think there were alternative responses that could have been more strategic for scum and planted bigger seeds for suspecting Mikal
“The scummiest player is unlikely to be scum. Every other player is even less likely to be scum, so you should eliminate the scummiest player.” - Wayne Gretzky
Created:
Posted in:
I'm just going to post my reads now. Don't see a point in waiting if things are going to be low otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
@AustinL0926
@Casey_Risk
@Moozer325
I want to see yall post before I give my first set of reads. What do you think of the players that have posted so far?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Scum have fake character and fake role claim. They’ll just use that
Thee are thee of them and it says they were only given one fake claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mikal
I don't remember playing with you before. You're either gonna love me or hate me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
Is Mikal always like this? Personality-wise, I mean, not pressuring you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
I hope you enjoyed it to some extent.
Yeah I liked it. Might start playing mafia regularly over there, but I'll try not to abandon you guys.
Created:
Posted in:
Will be nice to have a slower-paced game with only 11 players after MU.
Created:
Posted in:
If I advance, probably going to make a google doc where I save reasons why each player is towny and reasons why they are scummy, plus an overall evaluation. Then just post an updated version of that doc every so often and focus on pressuring players who haven't said much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Casey_Risk
Well, advancing is based on other people rating your overall ability as a player, so in theory it shouldn't make too big a difference what team someone is on or if they make a mistake that loses the game. That said, I think there were a number of players who did better than me (especially on the mafia team). I think my biggest mistake was not looking too hard at all the players since there were 15 of them and a whole lot of posts. I figured I would come back to a few, and then the focus fell on a few town players, and it was downhill from there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
My argument was that sex can only have 2 basic purposes, and one is a lot better than the other. The other is pure harm.
Best =/= only. Just because it's the best purpose doesn't mean it's the only purpose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
How’d you do? And what’s you think?
Town lost with zero mafia lynches, which I think was predictable near the end once we'd lynched three townies in a row. I was townie number four.
At one point I gave up and self voted before I realized it was MYLO (I actually confused LYLO and MYLO since it had been confirmed it wasn't LYLO.) At that point, I tried to unvote, and had I been successful, mafia may have been exposed (two had voted for me and another voted right after I tried to unvote). However, being unfamiliar with MU, I typed the wrong command for unvoting and scum hammered me, ending the game.
Even then, it wasn't obvious to me that the people who'd voted for me were mafia until after everything was revealed, and 2/3 were pretty widely town read, so I think town was pretty doomed either way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
The purpose of something (i.e. the reason that thing is done) depends on who is doing it. I don't think the purpose of something even needs to be a good reason. Like, what is the purpose of rape? Well, for the rapist, the purpose of raping someone might be to have sexual pleasure, but most of us would agree that's not a good justification.
Supposing the purpose for God creating sex is reproduction, then the purpose of two people having sex depends on the intentions of those two people. The purpose of having an affair might be lust or even revenge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Should a president have this ability or should he not?
Well, should the Attorney General have the power to prosecute people? Judge Dugan was indicted by a grand jury, so I don't think there was zero basis for the charges. There are probably political motivations involved, but then there always are whenever a politician is charged. Someone has to be in charge of prosecution, and I'm struggling to imagine a system where the risk of corruption is zero. If there's enough evidence to prosecute someone, should the AG just not prosecute them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I think this might be subconscious racism of the left at play. The being outraged at the deportation of criminals while simultaneously complaining about 50 people being saved from genocide. Wealthy people by the way who are skilled and will contribute to the economy and make America stronger not just freeloaders who need saved.
How is it racist if Remy thinks all refugees should be allowed to come?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
that doesn't necessarily mean all becoming one flesh sex has to be marital sex
How do you become one flesh with multiple people? Or become one flesh with someone and then dump them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AdaptableRatman
There is good among AI not all of it is evil.
Not convinced it's evil either. Just acknowledging some people oppose it.
Created:
Posted in:
How do you decide the best chess move? Well, if you had an infinite amount of time, the optimal strategy would be to map out all the possible chess games and then work backwards recursively from the end, assuming that your opponent will make the best possible move and then making the move that limits the best possible move they can make. If you have a limited amount of time, then you can only think so many moves ahead, and the you would have to rank possible game states based on how likely you are to win them. Computers are better at this than humans. As Garry Kasparov put it, "The human mind isn’t a computer; it cannot progress in an orderly fashion down a list of candidate moves and rank them by a score down to the hundredth of a pawn the way a chess machine does."
With Go, there are many more possibilities, but computers have still managed to beat the top human players. One thing that helps is that computers have a desired outcome and a way to determine whether a particular result is desirable or not even if they've never seen it before. Machine learning has gotten particularly good at most strategy games, even those with many possible different outcomes. Observing human players can give an AI model a basis for its strategies and for determining which game states are better than others. Then after it plays billions of games, it can empirically test which strategies lead to better outcomes.
But what if you wanted to write a novel or draw a picture? Using conventional wisdom, you would have the AI make one move at a time. In this case, that means deciding the next word to write. But even with large datasets, AI still lags behind human writers and artists. In contrast to strategy games, there's no objective metric for determining how good a book is, besides polling a lot of people. And in contrast to strategy games, writing books one word at a time probably isn't even the best way to write a book. In chess, you have to be ready to change your strategy every time the opponent does something. With writing, everything is up to the author. Writing a book by predicting all the possible endings is near impossible, and not even desirable if you can't measure the quality of all of them. However, writing is much easier when you know what the ending is going to be.
What if humans had to write books one word at a time, without going back and editing? Suppose 100 authors were in a room, interacting only with online polling software, and they had to vote on the next word until they had a story. I suspect they would do much worse than AI. Yet we expect machine learning software to write using this method, just by feeding it enormous amounts of data.
What if we changed the way we trained AI models to write? What we do right now is a bit like giving an AI model a complex word problem and a complex answer—maybe with enough data, the AI will eventually give decent answers, but it's much harder if the machine doesn't see each step that was taken to reach the answer. Suppose you had to learn to solve math problems in Chinese, and all you saw were paragraphs of questions and answers with no work shown? Maybe a better way would be to have each step written out, so you could figure out what each symbol represents, what the symbols are for addition, etc. It might seem like this is impossible with writing, since many of the steps in the process happen subconsciously, and authors don't say every thought that comes to their mind.
Should we have writers log every thought they have as they write? Do we need technology that scans human brains? I think it's possible to give AI a fighting chance without going that far. Google, one of the largest tech companies, logs each edit users make on Google Docs. Through Gmail, it can see how people create emails. Is this done one word at a time? Rarely. People often go back and rewrite sections once they know how the document ends, changing what comes earlier because of what comes later. As Bill Wilder put it, "If you have a problem with the third act, the real problem is in the first act." Rarely is a first draft publishable quality. If computers can be trained to behave like Go players or video game players or learn to solve captchas even better than humans, why couldn't they be trained to act like human writers, fleshing out an early draft before going back and polishing earlier bits?
I suspect we would see much better results. If Google and other large companies know what they're doing, they've probably even considered taking steps along this path. Instead of training LLMs to write a perfect first draft, something we don't even expect from humans, why not teach them to improve on the first draft? I strongly suspect this approach would work. The bigger question is whether large companies should take this approach. Is it worth all the personal data that would need to be forked over to create such a model? If you're against AI on principle, you'd probably hate this. But in the end, this isn't something we can really change. Up to this point, I've written this as an injunction, a suggestion, but it's more of a prediction. Once tech companies learn that AI can be trained this way to yield better results, those models will be built. And after that, there's no going back.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
lol, the ever reliable Babylon Bee.
It's satire though. I don't think accusing it of being "unreliable" really makes sense as a criticism.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You would be hard pressed to equate the moral outrage.
When did I equate the moral outrage? I just mentioned them both. That's not the same as equating.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
I could very well see non-racists donating to her as a protest against the toxic mob justice mentality exemplified in this case.
Yeah, it's possible. Reportedly, though, a number of donors have used aliases that refer to racist slogans, and common donations are $14 and $88, which apparently have become a shorthand for certain Nazi slogans. I mean, they could easily be trolling, but even if you think they're mostly serious racists, all they're doing is giving up their own money. That's my point.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I am not sure that robbing a woman's purse is the same as laying a finger on your shoulder....
I never said it was. Just that if you don't like the racist people giving money in either case, you should be happy they are losing it.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You treat the money supply as if it is a constant.
It's not, but these donations don't increase the money supply. And even if the taxes paid somehow increased the money supply (which is a big assumption about the effect on government spending), they don't increase the sum of money held by the donors and recipients.
Created:
Right now, a lot of people are angry that a woman is getting a lot of GoFundMe donations for saying a racial slur. However, if a racist person gives a dollar to another racist person, the number of total dollars held by racist people goes down, because GoFundMe donations to personal campaigns are not tax-deductible. Hence, you should want people you dislike to exchange money with each other as many times as possible in order to decrease the total money in their possession.
And if you don't like Karmelo Anthony, you should be glad that a lot of people who hate white people are losing money giving it to his family. They haven't used the money for legal expenses, which likely means they're going to blow through the money and spend it in irresponsible ways. Not only do Karmelo's supporter now have less money overall, it's likely going to be spent inefficiently on things that don't bring a significant benefit (people who receive windfalls don't usually spend them in the most responsible ways).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
what's the point of talking about politics to people you already agree with?
For some, it's a lot less stressful than talking about politics to people they disagree with. A waste of time, to be sure, but everyone has their vices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Anytime someone says, "We should have a conversation about, (insert topic here)", they don't know what they're talking about.
By "we" they mean themselves and the people who agree with them.
Created: