Open 878: Scarfolk Council | The End

[Cephrir]

yeah i greatly disagree with the approach in a mafia theory way but it's not scummy

[skitter30]

i'm so happy that you concede that

[Umlaut]

Aureal replaces GuerillaWoo.

Seeking a replacement for Alianna.

[Umlaut]

Vote Count 2.1

This is another page from the hospital records of the anonymous little girl who was found wandering Scarfolk in 1976 (more here).

The colouring book itself was produced by Scarfolk Council Health Board Service Council and was distributed throughout hospitals, schools and junior covens.

While providing children with a fun creative pastime, it also subtly alerted them to the dangers of horrific diseases such as rabies and bed wetting, instilling in the children a deep-seated fear of foreigners, close relatives, harmless household objects, animals, vegetables shaped like animals, and belly buttons (see Barbara the omphalophobic office hand puppet).

---

Aisa (1):

sheepsaysmeep

Dunnstral (1):

Aisa

Cephrir (1):

skitter30

skitter30 (1):

Cephrir

Not voting (7):

Dunnstral, Egix96, implosion, MegAzumarill, Menalque, Alianna, Aureal

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to launch.

Deadline:

(expired on 2023-06-13 14:00:00)

Notes:

• Seeking a replacement for Alianna.

[Aureal]

Oh no, I wasn't able to replenish the diminishing quota of As! Nooooooooooooo

Oh well, Alianna was probably SK anyway, just look at that knife!

[Aureal]

Anyway I've read to about page 20. I see Drew was a sticky wagon early on and that slot was miseliminated. So I'm wondering if that gamestate suggests that scum are more hand-off type letting town just run up whatever wacky townie gets the side eye the most. A more active Mafia team would perhaps try to get some other townie pushed out and leave that slot as a later bad push?

[Aureal]

Why do u not think enchant is productive rn ?

you have experience with enchant right? I think wagoning enchant is similar to wagoning N_M -- often a good idea, but unlikely to lead to anything very telling from him

like: if enchant is scum, cool, partners might bus or might just stall out plus I'm not likely to get anything from him. if enchant is town, cool, scum might back the wagon or they might let it stall out because they want to keep him around as a later game lim instead of burning the lim D1

this is not me shitting on enchant but again, similar to N_M, he's limbait and regardless of alignment I don't think the wagons on him are likely to be that productive or to spur other people into having interesting reactions or to do things that are revealing of alignment whereas a wagon elsewhere is more likely to lead to those things imo

HEY!!! No stealing my thoughts before I've even joined the game to have them!!!

But really on the rest of that, since when is Enchant limbait? Don't think I've ever seen it happen before this. I think he probably was just in too much of a hole from Drew's position? (I'm still reading ofc)

[Aureal]

do people actually tr invisibility? or like if I was a hypothetical vig… would people be mad if I shot invis tonight?

Hmmmmmmm... *eyes Invis NK*

[sheepsaysmeep]

thats pretty funny

[sheepsaysmeep]

aureal can u describe ur current reads?

[skitter30]

I think sheep can be scum here too

[sheepsaysmeep]

damn ur hurting my chances of getting nightkilled and escaping

[sheepsaysmeep]

im actually mildly getting tunneled onto aisa here

[sheepsaysmeep]

Hello darlin'. What can I help you with today

Damn
Would you like me to ask you a question or would that make it worse

Keep in mind that if you choose "make it worse" at some point I may decide you don't get a choice and ask the question anyway

enchant is an open wolf here please take the freebie

Great! I have assigned you a question. Your question is: was there anything behind your conviction here, except implosion's case?

VOTE: Enchant

Yeet. This may be all the content I can muster today, but yeet.

I have also assigned you a question, dear. Your question is: see question above

I think one thing I’m curious about,

@implosion

, is why you decided to make your case 24 hours after Enchant subbed in. Did you ever think about waiting a bit longer to see if Enchant would do something before accusing him? How certain were you that he was going to flip scum?

this is aisa coming into today clearly prepping to push the notion that the enchant wagon was scum-driven but scared to actually say it out loud like other people, which I would have believed more

Though I sympathise with what other people have been saying about Enchant meta, I think his alignment was ambiguous and I don't really blame people for wanting to flip there

this I just do not believe side-by-side with the agenda of the SoD questions

[Umlaut]

Deltabreedy replaces Alianna.

[Deltabreedy]

Bonjour.

Catching up, I've read a page or two here or there but nothing coherent and I want to catch up in full.

Is there any major events/cases that people would like to direct my attention towards in particular?

[sheepsaysmeep]

kinda funny that we've seen that post like 4 times in a row

imo theres not really anything if ur gonna catch up in full, thats great it's start of day u have time

[Cephrir]

Hello darlin'. What can I help you with today

Damn
Would you like me to ask you a question or would that make it worse

Keep in mind that if you choose "make it worse" at some point I may decide you don't get a choice and ask the question anyway

enchant is an open wolf here please take the freebie

Great! I have assigned you a question. Your question is: was there anything behind your conviction here, except implosion's case?

VOTE: Enchant

Yeet. This may be all the content I can muster today, but yeet.

I have also assigned you a question, dear. Your question is: see question above

I think one thing I’m curious about,

@implosion

, is why you decided to make your case 24 hours after Enchant subbed in. Did you ever think about waiting a bit longer to see if Enchant would do something before accusing him? How certain were you that he was going to flip scum?

this is aisa coming into today clearly prepping to push the notion that the enchant wagon was scum-driven but scared to actually say it out loud like other people, which I would have believed more

Though I sympathise with what other people have been saying about Enchant meta, I think his alignment was ambiguous and I don't really blame people for wanting to flip there

this I just do not believe side-by-side with the agenda of the SoD questions

I find this compelling.

[Aureal]

I'm just getting to page 30 and I'm tired so I don't know if I'll get all caught up tonight. For the moment here's where that puts me.

I'm thinking Aisa town, the weird vote reaction test on my slot doesn't make sense coming from scum. And her sudden unprompted turnabout on Andante, why would scum do that? Feels a lot like I do about Andante, lol. One moment you're like ok Andante town then just suddenly such doubt because she's so volatile. I thought Andante town for a while too (I peeked at this game a few days back when the slot was getting replaced and read her ISO) but I'm not positive, especially after the weird question about Invis and since she didn't get shot.

I feel fairly good about skitter. Her early reads did not mesh with mine well, and I recall her having a pretty opposite take on the game when I played a newbie with her before too so that kinda lines up. Plus her thought that Menalque could be Enchant's partner is the same way she was thinking regarding a similar situation there.

Menalque I was worried about for a bit since I saw nothing for quite a while, but I realized he was vla and waited to see if he became active, and he did. I hear he has a pretty anemic scum game so he's seeming fine now.

I'm watching implosion be a clear driver of the wagon on Enchant and going "scum wouldn't be

that

brazen... Right?" So I'm not like totally sold on implosion, it is kinda weird that there's apparently no counterwagoning, but probably not a Mafia slot?

Slots I'm most concerned about probably Dunnstral (all he's done is complain that Alianna's reads were against low activity slots), CSF (haven't seen much analysis or activity there), Alianna (kinda vanished but probably for non AI reasons), Cephrir (complaining about being bored and waving the Enchant wagon onward are all I really recall here). And I guess sheep falls more into the crowd that needs careful watching still because they're active but I'm just not really getting anything to townread.

[sheepsaysmeep]

thats a pretty good villagery post imo lol

[Aureal]

Page 36. Wow. Lol.

I liked CSF's coming for Dunnstral, that was a pretty good point that it's weird to apparently randomly look at the activity overview in order to shade someone's reads.

Then when a counterwagon is actually threatening Dunn, sheep starts acting like Enchant is a done deal, don't look elsewhere, gotta do this. I do not like this.

Pretty sad that the last votes on Enchant are town though. Could consider Menalque there as I think someone suggested, but I still think he's town, even more than before. Just wrong town. That's a silly town gambit, not a scum one.

[implosion]

Hooray, I get to do Math!

From skitter pov (or any on-wagon pov), there are 4 potential scum on wagon and 6 off wagon. Assume for simplicity (not safe to assume this, but whatever, it won't affect the takeaway) that there are exactly 3 scum.

The right question is emphatically not "is it likely that there are scum on the wagon". Obviously everyone agrees that's statistically likely. The question is, do you think it's likelier

than random chance would predict

that there is scum on the wagon. The raw probability from skitter's PoV of there being 0 scum on the wagon is 6 choose 3 (number of ways for all scum to be off wagon) over 10 choose 3 (number of ways for scum to be among the whole player list) which is exactly 1/6. So from a numbers standpoint, you should only be focusing on hunting on wagon based on the argument "it's likely some scum was on the wagon" if you think you can justify those odds being better than 5 in 6. Of course there's usually going to be scum on the wagon by raw numbers, but that is no justification for hunting on-wagon rather than off-wagon unless we're *more likely* to find scum on-wagon than off-wagon, i.e. if you think our odds are better than 5/6, which you'd need to justify.

Of course this is also ignoring

how many

scum are on-wagon and the numbers are different for someone off-wagon (from their perspective, it's 11/12 that there's at least one scum on the wagon, I believe). It's specifically responding to this phrasing of reasoning:

I think that there was at least one scum on wagon. It's possible that there were 0, for sure, but i think this universe is a lot less likely than the universe where there is at least one scum vote, so i'm concentrating here

Like, it's also

exceedingly

likely that there was at least one scum vote off the wagon, from skitter's point of view: in fact random chance would say that all 3 scum were on the wagon only 1 out of 30 times. So the same exact reasoning can be used to justify why we ought to look off the wagon. Of course the reason that the reasoning fails in both cases unless you think it's likelier than the baseline probability is that like, you might be 29/30 sure that there's at least one scum out of the 6 players off-wagon, but you might have to mislim 3 of them before figuring that out.

All this is to say: numbers are a silly thing to point to. "There's probably scum on the wagon" needs to be justified by means of why you think scum would be incentivized to vote Enchant, not by raw numbers.

[Aureal]

I just think like, obviously statistically there is wolf, but relatively the wagon felt very town-driven. like I think this wagon has way less of an expected value of wolves contained than the average d1 wagon on a villager so I think "since we know there's a wolf on the wagon let's focus there" is agendaly misapplied to this game

I infact think youre far more likely to find wolf off-wagon, for whiteknighty reasons + if there are people who didnt get the enchant!wolf push, that feels legit a little >rand w

Why exactly is it that you think this wagon was so much less likely to have scum on it?

pedit: g'whoa, implosionmath

[skitter30]

Like i said before, i find it easier to look for 1 scum in 4 than 2 scum in 6 (b/c the pool is smaller and there's fewer slots to look at), so i'm approaching it this way, whether or not it's mathematically correct

[skitter30]

Hooray, I get to do Math!

From skitter pov (or any on-wagon pov), there are 4 potential scum on wagon and 6 off wagon. Assume for simplicity (not safe to assume this, but whatever, it won't affect the takeaway) that there are exactly 3 scum.

The right question is emphatically not "is it likely that there are scum on the wagon". Obviously everyone agrees that's statistically likely. The question is, do you think it's likelier

than random chance would predict

that there is scum on the wagon. The raw probability from skitter's PoV of there being 0 scum on the wagon is 6 choose 3 (number of ways for all scum to be off wagon) over 10 choose 3 (number of ways for scum to be among the whole player list) which is exactly 1/6. So from a numbers standpoint, you should only be focusing on hunting on wagon based on the argument "it's likely some scum was on the wagon" if you think you can justify those odds being better than 5 in 6. Of course there's usually going to be scum on the wagon by raw numbers, but that is no justification for hunting on-wagon rather than off-wagon unless we're *more likely* to find scum on-wagon than off-wagon, i.e. if you think our odds are better than 5/6, which you'd need to justify.

Of course this is also ignoring

how many

scum are on-wagon and the numbers are different for someone off-wagon (from their perspective, it's 11/12 that there's at least one scum on the wagon, I believe). It's specifically responding to this phrasing of reasoning:

I think that there was at least one scum on wagon. It's possible that there were 0, for sure, but i think this universe is a lot less likely than the universe where there is at least one scum vote, so i'm concentrating here

Like, it's also

exceedingly

likely that there was at least one scum vote off the wagon, from skitter's point of view: in fact random chance would say that all 3 scum were on the wagon only 1 out of 30 times. So the same exact reasoning can be used to justify why we ought to look off the wagon. Of course the reason that the reasoning fails in both cases unless you think it's likelier than the baseline probability is that like, you might be 29/30 sure that there's at least one scum out of the 6 players off-wagon, but you might have to mislim 3 of them before figuring that out.

All this is to say: numbers are a silly thing to point to. "There's probably scum on the wagon" needs to be justified by means of why you think scum would be incentivized to vote Enchant, not by raw numbers.

Also for the third paragraph, i don't get it. If there's 1/6 of a chance of 0 scum onwagon, there's 5/6 of not 0 scum on-wagon (i.e. that there is a scum on wagon), so this seems like a good place to look