Mafia: NPF edition

[Daisuke]

Originally Posted by MasterOfMagic

Well, no, I think I would like to keep myself as far from that ban stick as possible. But I do like to be silly, yess.

You think? Does that mean you might not like to keep yourself away from the ban stick?

All silliness aside. I really don't dislike silliness except that certain people go nuts with arbitrary things and basically flood the topic with it. These people of course are B_real.

Being silly is like a way of cutting tension from an accusation, (not to mention being able to avoid really answering the accusations) and that's why people are jumping on you now. So do us all a favour and give us a real response.

[MasterOfMagic]

A real response?

Well, okay. Give me a real accusation then. I mean, all I saw was vague finger pointing. She basically said "So, I read through the thread....and got nothin'. But hey! Let's pick this guy! He sorta sounds funny, ya know?" Not that I can say much about it, I mean, she did a whole lot more than I bothered to. But there was nothing to defend agianst there.

Thus I gave my response the way I did. Give me specifics, and I'll do my best.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Well I don't think that MoM is a mafiate and the side that thinks that MoM is doesn't really have any real supporting facts for it.

[Sithdarth]

Well either MoM isn't a mafiate or he's the damn luckiest person in the world. Let me illustrate, first he'd have to have won the lottery and become a mafiate. Then the more or less random pick by Sillykitty the cult leader. Finally, he'd have gotten a last bit of luck with the mafia randomly, more or less, hitting Sillykitty. That series of events seems highly unlikely to me and he hasn't done anything really horrible as of right now.

[MasterOfMagic]

Well, crap. Guess that means Mesden's spirit was wasted

[h4x.m4g3]

Vote: Grthwllms

Something about him (and a few others) has been bugging me the entire game, just rubbing me the wrong way ya know. So while doing an investigation of what it was, I found the answer. He's made 14 post in this thread and 1 was pre-game. All of those post have been very very short (sure not everyone makes long post, but they've been 2-5 lnes with spacing), I'd say about a third of those post have been fluff, comments on something someone else has said or completely random, (maybe you don't agree with me on what's fluff), and 2 of them were in the defense of b-real on the basis of he's 'not in his right mind.

What's even more interesting is that he's made only one vote, that vote was for dojindog the unlynchable, who is actually still alive.

[Thundergod Cid]

An honest question about sithdarth's probability stuff: Wouldn't it all still apply if we considered two people who aren't next to each other as a group? Why does it only apply to two people that are next to each other on an arbitrary ordering?

Originally Posted by sithdarth

Now if you take a look there are only 3 possible combination of townie and mafiate for two people. (Both mafiate, both townie, or a mix, the mix being twice as likely as it can happen in two ways.) The probability of them both being townies is (4/7) * (3/6) = .286 or 28.6%. The probability of one being and the other not (4/7) * (3/6) + (3/7) * (4/6) = .571 or 57.1%, exactly double the other since there are two distinct ways it can happen. Finally the probability of both being mafiates is (3/7) * (2/6) = .143 or 14.3%. Add them all up and you get 100%. However, the total probability of finding at least one mafiate in a group of two unkown is .143 + .571 = .714 or 71.4%.

The chances of just a single unknown person in the list being mafiate is (3/7) or .429 or 42.9%. Also, the chances of a single unknown person being townie is (4/7) or .571 or 57.1%. So if you really have nothing to go on but randomly picking an unknown person pick one from the groups of two unknown people. You have a higher chance of hitting a mafaite.

Wouldn't all of that would still apply if we considered two people who are non-adjacent on the list as a group of two? Making all the unknowns, effectively, one large group?

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by Thundergod Cid

An honest question about sithdarth's probability stuff: Wouldn't it all still apply if we considered two people who aren't next to each other as a group? Why does it only apply to two people that are next to each other on an arbitrary ordering?

Wouldn't all of that would still apply if we considered two people who are non-adjacent on the list as a group of two? Making all the unknowns, effectively, one large group?

Percisely. However, I'm looking at it through the lens of finding the greatest possible density of mafiate rolls. Basically since the two unknowns are so close together on the list there is a slightly higher probability at least on of them are mafaite. Its like shooting into a flock of birds or school of fish. If you aim at the densest part of the flock or school you've got a better chance of randomly hitting something. That's basically where I have been coming from.

[Daisuke]

Originally Posted by Thundergod Cid

An honest question about sithdarth's probability stuff: Wouldn't it all still apply if we considered two people who aren't next to each other as a group? Why does it only apply to two people that are next to each other on an arbitrary ordering?

Wouldn't all of that would still apply if we considered two people who are non-adjacent on the list as a group of two? Making all the unknowns, effectively, one large group?

That's exactly what I said, but he said that the position applies. I just wish I had paid more attention in Mr. Steven's math class.

[Thundergod Cid]

Originally Posted by Sithdarth

Percisely. However, I'm looking at it through the lens of finding the greatest possible density of mafiate rolls. Basically since the two unknowns are so close together on the list there is a slightly higher probability at least on of them are mafaite. Its like shooting into a flock of birds or school of fish. If you aim at the densest part of the flock or school you've got a better chance of randomly hitting something. That's basically where I have been coming from.

I still don't quite understand this. Hypothetically speaking, lets consider Daisuke and MoM as a group of two, and sk3l3ton and h4x.m4g3 as another group of two. We could apply the same numerical analysis to both groups and get the same result. Why then, would the Daisuke/MoM group be more likely to contain a mafiate, just because they're together on the list and the other two are isolated unknowns?