In post 204, shiki wrote:you have just created groups that give the same weight to players who were inactive at the time of the wagon as to players who were active and not on the wagon and that doesn't seem like the best way to apply the data gained from the wagon if you are going to try to do so and everyone on the wagon is considered the same;
not hectic's only post is their contribution to the wagon; should we really consider that the same as anya's self-vote in terms of likelihood of being mafia?
there are just so many of these to make your groupings mean almost exactly 'these are the players on the wagon' to me
Look past "These are the people on the wagon"
Ignore their names. Ignore who could've been reasonably been online at the time and who couldn't've been.
All of that is irrelevant.
The Primary idea you need to believe is that it is unlikely, given the specific circumstances of Anya's wagon, that there were 0 scum on her wagon.
The Secondary idea you need to believe is that scum players tend to not push all at once on a wagon, to try and avoid association tells, which means it is unlikely that there were 3 scum on her wagon.
Putting both of these ideas together, you get to the conclusion that there was at least 1 scum on Anya's wagon.
If you believe the Primary and Secondary ideas of my hypothesis, then the following structure emerges:
All players on Anya's wagon can be placed into one group. We know that there is at least 1 scum in this group.
Everyone else can be placed into another group. We know that there is at least 1 scum in this group, because there is a minimum of 1 scum unaccounted for (if we assume that the first group had the maximum amount of scum it could contain)
That is essentially it. If you believe idea P and idea S, then the conclusion leads you to thee two groups mentioned in my first post about this.
