All of oranges copypasta are harsh
1 Like
You don’t even understand who you’re dealing with. I have advanced degrees in statistics and computer science and I’ve created a simple program with an advanced algorithm that I’ve been working on for years. I have read and tracked over 600 mafia games, recording every scumslip, every tell, every WORD uttered. At this point I can have my bot read the thread chat and play the game for me. I have reduced the cacophonous lies of forum mafia into a pure, beautiful mathematical formula, and it’s led me to literal hundreds of wins.
Why do I think you’re mafia? I don’t deign to think about you myself. Instead, I thought about how to create a program to know mathematically whether you are. I don’t need to think about you, because my algorithm has determined that you’re mafia to an 87% certainty. You cannot beat those numbers at this stage in the game. We’re talking about a mere 13% chance that you’re so monumentally bad at this game that you fooled a computer program that has successfully identified over 500 unique players as mafia with over 96% accuracy. Your only defense, in other words, is that your so scummy that you are an outlier.
Whether you’re town or mafia, this is a message from mathematics – you are bad at this game. You have played so scummy that a perfectly objective process has labeled you as scum. Whether that makes you bad at playing your specific rolecard or bad in general, there is no question that behaving like scum means you have not performed well. Consider this a welcome wakeup call, as hundreds have before you: If a player decides you’re scum, it’s possible you just got unlucky, but if a computer program can be that certain of your alignment, there are some serious holes in your game, because it means you’re scum in an objective sense, rather than a subjective one. For that reason, I’m willing to roll that die and take that 13% risk, because even if there’s a small chance you might be town, there’s not even a remote chance that you’re good
3 Likes
My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard and she’s like it’s better than yours
3 Likes
First of all, calling us cringe is incredible cringe. I’ll have you know that we as a team are EXCEPTIONALLY Pog and dem-
2 Likes
Dem?
1 Like
Demand to be referred to as such. “They left messages which framed other teams’ actions as suspicious without drawi by responsibility for the conclusions drawn form those messages-
3 Likes
We were shaky on supporting the suspicions because the suspicions were shaky.
1 Like
Ive always wanted to say this to you and may
4 Likes
This was a manifesto posted by a Jester who successfully got near unanimously D2ed after a D1 no vote
2 Likes
mods ban tutuu tbehbare Harding me and may
2 Likes
They are harassing
2 Likes
tbehbare WHAT?
3 Likes
I found the full thing
2 Likes
They are Harding us
1 Like
Summary
Okay! Sunbeams response.
First of all calling us cringe is incredible cringe, I’ll have you know that we as a team are EXCEPTIONALLY Pog and demand to be referred to as such.
“They left messages which framed teams’ actions as reasons to be suspicious without taking responsibility for the actual conclusions drawn from that”: Okay, so, that is fine and valid response if the suspicions we were giving were any more than early estimations and significant beyond vague guesses. Which they were. As all the guesses day 1 were. I was shaky on supporting the suspicions especially because while I will openly make suspicions, the suspicions were shaky. It is not unreasonable to be approaching the game, especially day 1 where we have exactly 0 usuable information for making real and present decisions, thus not drawing conclusions and just suggesting suspicion. Because we had only the suspicion and not conclusions at that point.
“Posting a screenshot of the vote totals on the revoke poll”: This was a joke. We were heckposting. As many teams have been doing. Heckposting has been incredibly common here, and has been said by many teams that it is not an indication of alignment, it is oddly suspicious that we are the only team that the flowers have been calling out for heckposting, which is inkeeping with their very aggressive manner to point fingers at us, the main people who have been criticising them.
“Raising the possibility that the MTs are a jester, “padded” with uncertain language”: Day 1. We were uncertain. Everyone was uncertain because we were working with very incomplete information. We’re still uncertain which is why we haven’t come out with a hard conclusion despite this increasingly aggressive attack on us by the Flowers, but again, uncertainty is a valid and reasonable attitude to a situation with very little information.
“Further “padding”, throwing suspicion on the Flowers as a joke repeatedly”: Most of this was in fact not a joke. The Flowers have pushed very aggressively towards us specifically and we are responding in kind as we feel the levels of focus we have felt from them were both not justified and suspicious.
“When they did take responsibility for the conclusions, they often backed down fast as to avoid seeming too aggressive”: Or maybe we are dealing with incomplete information and as such take a malleable stance that can be convinced otherwise, or back down because we have no concrete information, especially on day 1 as I’ve stated a number of times here, and I’m actively happy to change votes based on this as we view suspicion and votes in these early stages as relatively light and not a big deal.
“From what I’ve seen, Luquos appears to be experienced with forum mafia (correct me if I’m wrong)”: Mostly in-person Mafia, actually, not Forum.
“so it feels odd to me that they would be so immediately suspicious of someone pushing the Random Voting Stage”: Ah, see, the thing here is that it’s important to have someone actively criticing and pushing the teams establishing themselves as community leaders and especially active, lest those teams build enough trust to be viewed in that light by the other teams automatically. You’ll notice almost every action I’ve taken specifically has been against the teams pushing the most action with the least information - And then, today, the team that was actively telling us to ignore information.
"Later, they did go bolder and voted to revoke the Wings ": We were more sure at that point, yes. As I’ve said, all of this was on very slim reasoning and we responded based on the information we had at the time, which was not very much.
"But very soon after that, when the Lift bandwagoned on the Wings, they switched to voting the Lift as soon as the Steaks did as well ": We felt that the Lift’s actions were more suspicious than the Wings. It was not that we felt the wings weren’t suspicious, but that the Lift bandwagoning was more so than the Wings’ actions. A vote is not a “Condemn” it is a “This team is most supicious right now” and we are treating it as such.
“but they chose not to maintain that vote once the voting channel was created” : Okay tbh I thought the previous vote carried though and then it was late enough that we were like “eh, new vote’ll happen soon”.
“Their reaction to being pushed has been defensive and strange - at first, they just dismissed the claims and said some stuff about Wild Low solidarity, but later”: Wild Low solidarity is a significant heckpost, much like Tigerbeams Forever or the FFs-Beams rivalryflirting. We pushed for you specifically because you’re deeply suspicious and continue to be.
“They seem to be trying to discredit our reasons for pushing them - which is natural - but in a way that to me feels subtle and just weird.”: This is entirely vibes which like, valid, but I can’t reasonably respond to vibes. You just going “It’s weird and suspicious” carries about as much weight as me going “The Breath Mints are clearly levil”. None at all.
"Another line of reasoning which feels really odd to me is that they have been saying our use of specific mafia terminology is intentionally mudding the waters ": Yes. It is. Intentional use of meta terminology is significantly muddying the waters and leading to explanations and discussion that could be cleared up by you guys just using a full sentence to describe what you mean by said terminology. You’re also using it wrong a lot of the time (IIoA being an EXCELLENT example, which hasn’t been applied correctly once so far and is only tenuously applicable in the early stages of the game anyway), and continuing to do that even when on Day1 we as the Beams raised the point that maybe you could be explicit in your meaning and many people agreed, which is why I especially have continued to push for it because I fully believe that using the meta terminology is trying to make yourselves look smart and at the same time distracting from the actual merits of any point you’re making by drowning it in acronyms.
It’s meant to say harass
1 Like
Even better than I remembered
1 Like
Fantastic jester play
2 Likes
May can you say reptile pwetty please
Incredible stuff