Roxy wrote:Metalmarsh89 wrote:Roxy wrote:Metalmarsh89 wrote:Boomslang wrote:Metalmarsh, I'm not arguing about conformism. I'm arguing that, because there are more civs than mafia in the game, any given group of players is more likely to be composed of more civs than mafia. The largest, i.e., majority, group is thus most likely to contain the most civs.
According to your theory, the only thing that will matter are overall numbers. Let's take a look.
Given a group of maybe 20 players who vote one way, or specifically act one way, 58% of them will be civvie (about 11-12) and 39% will be baddie (about 7-8). But these percentages will apply to any behavior or vote pattern according to your theory, which means that same ratio will exist even if only two players exhibit a specified behavior. Sure there will be more civvies in larger groups, but there will be more baddies to keep the percentages even. Especially in a game where we have two four-player baddie teams and four indies, we have a lot of free-thinking going around, and by proxy, a lot of conforming without hesitation.
So I don't think looking at behaviors is important. Actually, I lied. If there is a behavior that you think is indicative of baddie, of course it's worth looking into. Otherwise, I believe looking at player-specific behaviors is a better bet. Oh and vote patterns.
Linki: What llama said.
Are these Maths a joke too?
I disagree with a good portion of this.
Tbf a lot of your posts make my nose twitch.
No. I was logically proving that Boomslang's theory is inaccurate.
So you disagreee with llama and agree with Boomslang?
Linki: ture
Did I state anywhere that I agreed with Boom? Nope.
No, but you said you disagreed with my post, which was entirely a counterstatement to Boomslang's post. If you disagree with myself and Boomslang, then you yourself are riding the fence.
Roxy wrote:I said I disagree with your posts.
First off is your vote for SVS to get convo going seems like a bit of a stretch. bc A) you never stated any reasoning to, ya know, get convo going. b) bc when asked who you were changing your vote to you ignored and acted like we should have deduced ourselves who you were voting for.
Okay, next game I will start off with "
Voting [insert player name here] to get conversation going." That will be mighty effective and also very civvie-like.
Roxy wrote:As far as the quoted post goes your interpretation of how behaviors are not important then go on tosay yes they are important. You rode the fence in your entire post. you say this is important but then say its not as important as this.
I say behavior is a big part of locating baddies. You telling people what is right or wrong in hunting baddies is more or less telling them don't play your own way bc it. is wrong. I super disliked it when inh called boomslang stupid which is the #1 reason I do not like your or his reactions to one post boomslang made. I realize YOU did not call him stupid but you still argued with inh against boomslangs post. (Which may be wrong but who am I to judge how boom plays?) yes its worth noting but is it worth a vote I do not think so.
I have nothing to do with INH, or llama (who also disagreed with Booms). I made the argument of my own choosing because I disagreed and I want credit!
Roxy wrote:I do think your behavior this game is quite different than other games. You seem much more into it than before - more in your face - though thats not quite it either.
I have been a baddie quite a lot, so I don't know how you can twist that logic to make me bad.
Roxy wrote:I do think I will be voting for you.
I think you probably won't.
at least I believe that was the one in which I called his baddie alignment and people voted for him because both David and I were basically saying he was bad. I think. My memory is fuzzy
I did not know these things about you, but all the more reason to vote you on Day 1 and make something happen.
) and pay attention to his suspicions.
How convenient.
