|
Post by Aethera on Jan 22, 2014 11:18:41 GMT -8
Well bleh. A couple of folks were saying yesterDay that they thought it unlikely the first mission would fail, since with only 3 people on it, it would be too risky. I don't agree. I think it's slightly more likely that Riku is a Spy, but not hugely so. I think it's definitely most advantageous for him to do it of the 3, and the least risky, since he won't be GM again for quite some time and he's thrown suspicion on the next 2 GMs. But without lynches, and with 4 total spies, I think it's not as risky as it could be for any of them, and for each of them, the upside would be that the Spies have 1 Failure done. So for each of the 3, there is risk and reward. All of that assumes 1 Spy of the 3 - the risk does increase some if more than 1 team member is a Spy. If we're talking about the possibility of more than 1/3, I think that if Riku is a Spy, it's less likely that AL or Leif is one. If I had been Spy Riku setting up for the first mission, I would have minimized Spy exposure by only having 1 spy on the team, so that 2 Resistance members would get suspicion and most of the Spies would be neutral in terms of Mission Results. I get the WIFOM point Marinated, but I still think it would be riskier behavior than simply putting 1 on the team and failing the mission. Obviously that reasoning only applies if Riku is a spy. If Leif and AL were spies together, my guy says "ballsy!" to a Mission Fail, but since we can't lynch them, perhaps not so ballsy? Sorry guys, don't mean to...call you Not-Ballsy? I'll stop using that word now. I think 3 is right out - people didn't immediately pile on my suggestion of 'the 1st 3 GMs' to the point where I imagine Riku would have felt boxed in. If the Spies hated the idea they could have shifted discussion away by proposing alternatives...I pointed out a few, and none of those got any support that I recall. I need to re-read Day 1, but for now, my thoughts on the posts since Day on: Leaving the GM off the missions doesn't help us, as far as I can see, in terms of Spy GMs. They can just put other Spies on the mission, anyway. I think if we're all too suspicious of the GM to want him/her on the mission, we're likely to reject that mission, or at least I'm likely to. I don't think Previous ROMS behavior is entirely useless, Furare. I think it's less useful because saying "Searmin is a Risk-Taker" applies less when we're all not quite sure what Risky Play looks like. But I think those kinds of generalizations can be helpful. To get into some math, Dylan-style (sorry!): If we say "Next Mission No Riku, AL or Leif that leaves us with 7 players. At worst, 3 of the other 7 players are Spies (since we know at least one of the 3 from the last mission is a Spy). We have to have 4 people on the team, since we're on Mission 2 now. I'm trying to figure out if, statistically, it makes more sense to leave them out of the possibilities or include them. 4/10 is 40%. 3/7 is 42%. So each mission position has a 40 or 42% chance of being filled by a spy. That's as good as my statistics get. Help? I don't remember how to continue from there to figure out the overall probabilities. My gut says to leave the 3 of them out, if we are going to Accept a mission from Leif. I'm not sure we should though. We can figure out AL based on what we do with Leif. When we decided to send the first 3 GMs on the mission, what were we hoping to achieve? What are we going to do with what we've learned? I at least was hoping to learn enough to figure out whether to Accept or Reject Leif and AL's choices, since they're the next GMs. It seems people are talking about what to do with the rounds, which does mean the picking generated some discussion in addition to just "are the 3 of them spies". The Failure did give us more to discuss than a Success would have, I think - if the mission had succeeded I would have been considering the 3 of them again plus 1, to see what happened. The Failure set up logical probabilities for people (the discussion about whether it was Riku or not, and the risks involved). So I think it helped. We're just all not quite sure where we stand but we have Daylight to figure it out. The only person I don't remember much from so far is Firebolt. She volunteered to go, and that's all I recall. Not sure what that means. I'll have to go look. Crap, my posts are getting really long again. Every comment spurs thoughts since this is all so new still. Preview: And AL posted. It's tough - I see the point in trying to figure out who the 'assuming-it-was-only-1' Spy on the last mission was, and excluding only them for a better chance at avoiding spies on the next mission. But I don't think any of us is sure enough to do that. Being down 0-2 is a worse result than simply rejecting the next set.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jan 22, 2014 11:50:04 GMT -8
I don't know if Sets understands the game - if we reject Leif's mission the buck passes to AL and *we are still on Mission 2*. Apologies if you did know that, it just doesn't look like it from your posts. I am shattered and I have no idea if I'll be good for anything approaching rational thought this evening. When I said we should take time for mission two I meant we probably shouldn't send a mission team this day.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 11:52:58 GMT -8
I don't understand how that suggestion makes any sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jan 22, 2014 12:06:29 GMT -8
Rushing into an 0-2 hole isn't a very appealing course of action to me, especially when many players have yet to voice their opinions.
What makes sense about sending the team you suggested today given the context of our circumstances and the projected result?
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 12:24:21 GMT -8
Which team would you support?
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jan 22, 2014 12:30:33 GMT -8
At present, none.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 12:38:27 GMT -8
A knee jerk rejection of every team is nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jan 22, 2014 12:42:25 GMT -8
Ignoring necessary caution isn't. Random choice is likely to fail as I explained. With more information from more people, it is likely my opinion changes. You asked for my current stance, you don't have to agree with it.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 22, 2014 12:57:54 GMT -8
Really, Sets asked a question: Why send that particular team? Why those people? Why do you think it's likely to succeed? Turning it back on him with "Well, what would you do, then?" isn't really a constructive discussion. Sorry, Sets, I think I was interpreting your use of "Pass" as "skip over" as used in quiz shows where you don't know the answer. Yeah, if Missions 2 and 3 succeed, the game is well on its way to being won. I am erring on the side of caution and rejecting missions unless they're proposed with strong reasons, but I think we do have to do something eventually. I hope discussion is going to turn up more information so we can make good choices. But we know from ROMS that doesn't always happen. I have this feeling that Sets isn't being as much of an ass as usual, and I wonder if that makes him a bad guy.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 13:04:57 GMT -8
Yeah, the point is that doing nothing actually does nothing. Unlike ROMS we don't wind up with new information and reduced pool of suspects each morning if we dither.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 22, 2014 13:07:32 GMT -8
You don't think we are learning anything about each other through discussion? If we can't learn anything without sending missions, then I have to say that I don't think there's any way we can win.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 13:15:15 GMT -8
Ultimately, no. We can analyze word choice or percentages or breakfast cereal preference as an indicator of likely roguehood all year. Break it down, turn it over, toss it in a mass spectrometer, and until we argue about who to send out and vote for it and see the results of an individual team, we learn nothing. Saying, "Nah, let's just not do anything" doesn't get us anywhere.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 13:21:41 GMT -8
To that end, I'll say yes, I favor excluding Riku as I find him the most likely rogue of the first 3, albeit slightly. I think Aeth had good notes on this at the top of the page.
I also think we gain more from some degree of team continuity. Scrapping it all and starting over for Mission 2 leaves us in a worse position as we'd be picking more people and lose out with only 1 rogue on the team. My initial proposition was to keep the two I found less likely to be rogues, but whatever. I think picking the whomever is deemed most innocent and proceeding with them is also an option I would support.
Currently, I'd not favor Firebolt for reasons of quietness. I'd not favor Riku for the aforementioned reason. I'd actually probably favor Sets because dumb philosophy or not, I think it's less likely to be espoused by a rogue. Most everyone else I'm neutral about, so I just added the next on the list.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jan 22, 2014 13:37:34 GMT -8
I don't think you're getting what I'm saying Leif. I don't think that there is a team I would be okay with right now because some players have yet to say much today or in the game thus far.
Innocents generally greatly outnumber rogues in ROMS which is not the case here. The same margin of error does not exist.
I don't think just sending the next few GMs is a repeatable strategy. I agree with excluding Riku and can see a good argument to send you and AL. However I think further discussion through the day can lead to a consensus on some unlikely to be spy type people.
Generally you are intent on gathering information and making informed decisions, you even began this day that way. Why be so rash to make a RNGd list your method of action when simple math tells you it will result in a fail more often than not.
Edited to fix some phone typos, apologies if there are others.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 13:40:59 GMT -8
That's somewhat at odds with the statement that we shouldn't send a team this day.
Corrected to add an n't.
|
|
|
Post by Aethera on Jan 22, 2014 13:41:09 GMT -8
See, I thought Sets meant we should take our time on Day 2 figuring out who might go on Mission 2. I'm not against a rejection, but it feels like he's saying we should take the full Day cycles for Leif and AL even if we do Reject. I'm not sure I think endless discussion is going to help us, if nothing new Happens, since as Leif pointed out, no one gets banned even if we don't 'lynch', as it were. The only new Happening options are:
1. Have Leif submit a mission team and vote to Reject it, thus moving us to AL and a new 96 hour day wherein we can discuss more. 2. Have Leif submit a mission team and vote to Accept it, and see what happens. 3. Let this day run a while longer and keep discussing to see if we can arrive at a mission team we can Accept from Leif.
Otherwise the only thing that happens is the Game rolling itself into the next Day and the passive changing of the GM. Not something to gain new info from, is it? A changed circumstance, yes, but not new information. I think if we're not going accept a mission from leif, we should have him submit one so we can reject and move forward.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 13:47:38 GMT -8
I don't think it's sensible to reject a team just to reject a team. Teams or at least members ought to be suggested and argued over and voted on etc. While I haven't played before, I think that's really where the info we get from a mission outcome becomes actionable.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 22, 2014 13:51:12 GMT -8
The issue is that 40% of us are bad guys, we need to pick 4 people for each of the next 2 missions, and if we pick a Spy on both of them we will lose. So I really understand the idea that we don't send anything at all until we've talked it through. (I think Sets is saying "Reject as many missions as we need to in order to get the right mission", but I might be wrong.
If we ultimately learn nothing from discussion, then I suggest we all stop playing now because it's pointless.
I would prefer not to move on until we've heard from everyone and have some idea where everyone stands. To that end, I'm going to leave this for tonight. I'm too tired anyway.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 13:53:52 GMT -8
I mean, I'm not suggesting we pick a team right immediately, but really, that's where useful discussion lay. We've got just over 3 days from now before Wrecker cuts us off and moves on.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 13:56:55 GMT -8
And willful misinterpretation moves Furare into the "preferred not on a team" bucket.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 14:01:26 GMT -8
Eh. Given the different game set up, I'm not sure that's actually as much of an issue in terms of roguedom. Will think on it. In the meantime, just assume that reads, "Wow, way to misinterpret and misrepresent!"
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jan 22, 2014 14:04:29 GMT -8
You've been pushing to get a team list right now and even though not everyone has posted past that point you are against myself saying we should take time to hear from people.
I don't get what Furare is willfully misinterpreting.
It would be super neat to get thoughts from Firebolt, Jolyna and Bunny in particular as well as anyone else that's been really quiet that I'm not currently thinking of.
|
|
|
Post by Aethera on Jan 22, 2014 14:05:48 GMT -8
Sorry, I don't mean immediately, but I think if we get significantly into the Day and discussion hits a wall, then we need to move on, and same on following Days. I think there's only so much useful discussion that can be had in a 96 hour window with only 10 people. I don't want us rejecting a mission an hour or anything. I do think it's ok for us to keep proposing missions until enough of us are happy though. We can go through the GM list more than once, right? Furare, have a drink on me
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 22, 2014 14:11:54 GMT -8
Oh, Leif, I'd missed your spurious accusations of slanderous intent against people who disagree with you. (And yes, I used the word "spurious". As in "false". Bite me.) Willful misinterpretation? Really? You don't think we are learning anything about each other through discussion? I took what you said literally. Maybe you consider that a misinterpretation, but I think that the idea that we only learn things by sending missions is a dangerous enough one to take this literally and answer it even if that's not how you meant it. I'm not trying to make you look bad, I'm just trying to point out that if we don't talk to each other - if we don't take time to talk to each other - then the game isn't going to work out the way the good folk of the resistance want it to. You were the one interpreting: I am erring on the side of caution and rejecting missions unless they're proposed with strong reasons, but I think we do have to do something eventually. as Saying, "Nah, let's just not do anything" Who's the one getting misinterpreted? Or okay, so maybe you were talking about Sets saying "Nah, let's just not do anything". But that doesn't seem a very fair interpretation of Sets' words and actions either. He asked you to justify your potential team choice, he seems interested in having a discussion - he just doesn't want to send a mission without a good reason. That's far from "Nah, let's just not do anything". tl;dr: if anyone's getting willfully misinterpreted, it sure ain't you, and it sure ain't by me.
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 22, 2014 14:14:35 GMT -8
Maybe I will have that drink, Aeth.
PS: I'm not angry or upset, whatever my last post looks like. Irritated, perhaps.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 14:16:57 GMT -8
You've been pushing to get a team list right now and even though not everyone has posted past that point you are against myself saying we should take time to hear from people. No. I haven't. I've been pushing people to talk about teams we might want. And wow, Furare, I sure don't remember that post being that short.
|
|
Leif
Senior Chatterbox
Posts: 600
|
Post by Leif on Jan 22, 2014 14:19:13 GMT -8
Or okay, so maybe you were talking about Sets saying "Nah, let's just not do anything". He later changed it somewhat, but at that point we were working from a statement of:
|
|
Furare
Game Moderator
ROMS Encyclopaedia
Posts: 502
|
Post by Furare on Jan 22, 2014 15:02:56 GMT -8
And wow, Furare, I sure don't remember that post being that short. Nor was mine. Regardless, do what you want. I'm not having an argument with you about this again. I explained what I was responding to, and why even if you didn't literally mean that I found the idea worth refuting regardless, and how it isn't even really to do with you. If you're just going to be snide while implying I'm still misinterpreting or mischaracterising you then I'm done. Also, not sending a mission today isn't the same as not doing anything today. That's exactly the point I've been trying to make.Maths: Picking 4 people at random out of 10 where there is a 40% chance any one person is a Spy P(0 Spies) = 0.6^4 = 0.1296 So there is a roughly 13% chance of picking a team with no Spies on if you do it at random. Picking 4 people at random out of 7 where there is a 3/7 chance that any one person is a Spy P(0 Spies) = (4/7)^4 = 0.1066 Giving 10.66% chance of picking a team with no Spies on if you do it at random from the non-AL/Leif/Riku people. Assuming only one of them is a Spy; the odds get better if 2 of them are. But then would they ruin the mission if two Spies were on it? Who knows. Conclusions: - On pure probability it is likely counter-intuitive to eliminate Riku, Leif and AL from consideration. - We should not be doing this at random. Thirteen percent doesn't look like good odds to me.
|
|
|
Post by Setsusa on Jan 22, 2014 15:10:13 GMT -8
Or okay, so maybe you were talking about Sets saying "Nah, let's just not do anything". He later changed it somewhat, but at that point we were working from a statement of: I thought we were past the point where we had to go over the difference between today and toDay No. I haven't. I've been pushing people to talk about teams we might want. Which I said none at present and you turned it around into a rather circular discussion which as we've all seen usually makes other people avoid posting (not saying that's why they're not posting) which is counterproductive to your initial goal.
|
|
|
Post by Riku on Jan 22, 2014 15:47:30 GMT -8
Why the FoS on Aethera for that? If anything I would give her a small FoI for it as I think a spy would have just kept quiet as any three chosen would have had a good chance of including a spy. Let's use a ROMS analogy for a moment. Say Aeth said "Let's lynch person A, and then that will tell us X about persons B and C". Something seeming to go "according to plan" like that, when the plan benefits the bad guys, always rings alarm bells for me. I didn't really find the plan suspicious at the time, so it's not a very significant FoS, but knowing there was a spy in the mission team she suggested makes me suspicious. Why would it need confidence? If I was a spy I would have definitely caused the first one to fail if I could. That was... pretty much what I concluded? Hence the "Or maybe not, and they just wanted the tangible result immediately". But as for why I initially thought it would require confidence is that if I was a spy I would have, in most cases, caused the first one to pass if I could. That seems to be the common practice, judging by other games of this type and according to Wrecker. Passing the first mission gives the resistance a false sense of security. Failing the first one puts us immediately on our toes, and makes us much more careful. As evidenced by... the thread at this time. We have to have 4 people on the team, since we're on Mission 2 now. I'm trying to figure out if, statistically, it makes more sense to leave them out of the possibilities or include them. 4/10 is 40%. 3/7 is 42%. So each mission position has a 40 or 42% chance of being filled by a spy. That's as good as my statistics get. Help? It's a bit more complicated. Note: probabilities are done with the assumption that there was only one spy on the first mission team. This might be untrue, but we'll assume it is for now because it is the most likely possibility. First off, it's easiest to look for the probability of having no spies on the mission. If we pick randomly from all 10, our first selection has a 6/10 chance of not-spy, the next has a 5/9, then 4/8, then 3/7. That's because with each selection, you need to have already taken a not-spy out of the pool, so your probability of getting a second/third/fourth one is now lower. That is... 6.25% chance of not having a spy, picking randomly. Now, if we disclude me, Leif, and AL, we instead have for the first person a 4/7 chance of not-spy, then 3/6, then 2/5, then 1/4. That comes out to a whopping 2.86% chance of not having a spy. Furare, your numbers are a bit off because you didn't account for the probabilities not being independent, but your conclusions are correct.
|
|