WW37- For Whom the Bell Trolls

[novice]

Thanks for the elaboration, Shadeun.

Which, now I think of it, leads me to ask why you keep asking about something for which my motive (being new) was so transparent. Deflection?

One motivation is to get you talking. But also, when your only contribution of the day is a two-sentence justification for a vote, and one of the sentences clearly makes no sense, don't you think that's worth questioning? I'm trying to encourage you to spell out your reasoning a little more. That way we can try to figure out if you're reasoning honestly or just making up reasons to vote.

And your thought process is not so transparent. To illustrate, you're still not being clear about your reasoning. You're saying
* You were returning Mattimeo's favour. I.e. you were voting Mattimeo for being tardy or you were voting him for no reason.
* You were voting Mattimeo because he was preying on the weak.
* Your motive was transparent (being new).

Here's another question for you. Were you following the game when Mattimeo claimed his ability? Did that affect your assessment of him in any way?

And one more. You said to Goreripper that he sure talked a lot for someone who proclaimed to have little to lose. So what was your assessment of Goreripper, did you think he was being honest?

[Gazglum]

Welcome to the jungle Shadeun. I told you we take werewolf seriously. In the immortal words of the Mario Bros. Movie: This Aint No Game.

[Shadeun]

Thanks for the elaboration, Shadeun.

Which, now I think of it, leads me to ask why you keep asking about something for which my motive (being new) was so transparent. Deflection?

One motivation is to get you talking. But also, when your only contribution of the day is a two-sentence justification for a vote, and one of the sentences clearly makes no sense, don't you think that's worth questioning? I'm trying to encourage you to spell out your reasoning a little more. That way we can try to figure out if you're reasoning honestly or just making up reasons to vote.

And your thought process is not so transparent. To illustrate, you're still not being clear about your reasoning. You're saying
* You were returning Mattimeo's favour. I.e. you were voting Mattimeo for being tardy or you were voting him for no reason.
* You were voting Mattimeo because he was preying on the weak.
* Your motive was transparent (being new).

Here's another question for you. Were you following the game when Mattimeo claimed his ability? Did that affect your assessment of him in any way?

And one more. You said to Goreripper that he sure talked a lot for someone who proclaimed to have little to lose. So what was your assessment of Goreripper, did you think he was being honest?

"I was returning the favour" just refers to me voting for him for no reason related to the actual village vs scum game just as he did for no game related reason (me being tardy). Nothing to do with him being tardy (clearly he is not).

Also, which remains the case, he seemed to be just kicking the new guy for taking a little time. This seemed petty at the time. However, now that I see how much you guys post, I can see that me not immediately jumping in to talk (based on no actual information) is seen as a negative.

My reasons could perhaps be more clear.
1. It seemed petty / baseless to vote for me for being tardy. I 'returned the favour' by voting for him
2. I felt like he was pointing the finger. And that (in my zero online WW experience) seemed suspicious. Increasing my want to vote for him

As to your questions:
1. I didn't change my vote but that doesn't mean my assessment remained unchanged. His claim is interesting but I don't really have the prior game experience (and don't have the time to read through old games mid week) to know his 'traits'. Mattimeo was tied for most votes at that point with the game coming to and end - hard to read much into desperate actions of a person who had earlier stated (something to the effect of) "I dont want to go out d1. again."

2. On Goreripper there was no reason to believe him beforehand but the facts, when revealed, showed he was not scum or village.

On the game in general/meta: I think talking early is not a FOSD as you increase information/misunderstandings (see: your questions of me) which is suboptimal for the end game. With this in mind: those who talk more early game (from a strategy perspective, not from a social perspective) are likely to believe they have other advantages in the end game to offset the information advantage they are giving away. The advantage they gain, I suppose, is to avoid early lynchings and try and get the village to form up around them.

This is what I have learned day 1. Loving this

[Gazglum]

Gazglum, the reason I voted you was because you seemed to be switching on and off on a whim - as Pindicater said, it looked like you were just tossing shit around to see where it sticked. Sure, Zaks voted a lot, but each time I got a sense of where it was coming from and why he was leaving the other wagon. Your votes...seem to have less weight around them

As I said before, I only actually voted between 4 people (Jabbz, Zak, Pind, Novice). Same as Zak, Rowain and Fenn from a perusal of the tally. Perhaps I was floating like a butterfly more than stinging like a bee, but it was because I didn't see a case strong enough to lock onto.

Nobody else was building much of a case either, until Commodore offered himself up like a convenient suckling pig.

some of the flavor-fun you bring feels a bit forced as well.

Like when you told me last game that 'I lacked the essential vigor of the Glum?'

[Gazglum]

On the game in general/meta: I think talking early is not a FOSD as you increase information/misunderstandings (see: your questions of me) which is suboptimal for the end game. With this in mind: those who talk more early game (from a strategy perspective, not from a social perspective) are likely to believe they have other advantages in the end game to offset the information advantage they are giving away. The advantage they gain, I suppose, is to avoid early lynchings and try and get the village to form up around them.

Shadeun, that link says:

Statewise dominance is a special case of the canonical first-order stochastic dominance, defined as follows: Gamble A has first-order stochastic dominance over gamble B if for any good outcome x, A gives at least as high a probability of receiving at least x as does B, and for some x, A gives a higher probability of receiving at least x. In notation form, P [A \ge x]\ge P [B \ge x] for all x, and for some x, P[A \ge x]>P[B \ge x]. In terms of the cumulative distribution functions of the two gambles, A dominating B means that F_A(x) \le F_B(x) for all x, with strict inequality at some x. For example, consider a die-toss where 1 through 3 wins $1 and 4 through 6 wins $2 in gamble B. This is dominated by a gamble C that yields $3 for 1 through 3 and $1 for 4 through 6, and it is also dominated by a gamble A that gives $1 for 1 and 2 and $2 for 3 through 6. Gamble A has statewise dominance over B, but gamble C has first-order stochastic dominance over B without statewise dominance. This is because, in states 4 to 6, gamble C has a worse outcome than B, however P [C \ge x] = P [B \ge x] for all x \le 2 and P [C \ge x]> P [B \ge x] for all 2 < x \le 3 . Further, although when A dominates B, the expected value of the payoff under A will be greater than the expected value of the payoff under B, this is not a sufficient condition for dominance, and so one cannot order lotteries with regard to stochastic dominance simply by comparing the means of their probability distributions.
Every expected utility maximizer with an increasing utility function will prefer gamble A over gamble B if A first-order stochastically dominates B.
First-order stochastic dominance can also be expressed as follows: If and only if A first-order stochastically dominates B, there exists some gamble y such that x_B \overset {d}{=} (x_A+y) where y\le 0 in all possible states (and strictly negative in at least one state); here \overset{d}{=} means "is equal in distribution to" (that is, "has the same distribution as"). Thus, we can go from the graphed density function of A to that of B by, roughly speaking, pushing some of the probability mass to the left.

Can you rephrase for the statistically challenged?

Also, why would talking to people 'give away an information advantage'? Isn't the baseline assumption that you are town, therefore have no secret information to let slip?

This is what I have learned day 1. Loving this

I knew you would!

[Bobchillingworth]

GM note that I should be around to adjudicate N1 tonight; office pub crawl in Boston canceled due to a combination of unanticipated inclement weather and common sense

[Shadeun]

Can you rephrase for the statistically challenged?

Basically a FOSD strategy/gamble is one which is better (in terms of outcome for you) than an alternative strategy/gamble for all rolls of the dice (the whole probability set).

Also, why would talking to people 'give away an information advantage'? Isn't the baseline assumption that you are town, therefore have no secret information to let slip?

Didn't mean secret information (though there is always your powers, which you want to keep from scum) but just information about how you reason, willingness to fight, etc. No point in giving that away for nothing early game.

[pindicator]

Gazglum, the reason I voted you was because you seemed to be switching on and off on a whim - as Pindicater said, it looked like you were just tossing shit around to see where it sticked. Sure, Zaks voted a lot, but each time I got a sense of where it was coming from and why he was leaving the other wagon. Your votes...seem to have less weight around them

As I said before, I only actually voted between 4 people (Jabbz, Zak, Pind, Novice). Same as Zak, Rowain and Fenn from a perusal of the tally. Perhaps I was floating like a butterfly more than stinging like a bee, but it was because I didn't see a case strong enough to lock onto.

Nobody else was building much of a case either, until Commodore offered himself up like a convenient suckling pig.

some of the flavor-fun you bring feels a bit forced as well.

Like when you told me last game that 'I lacked the essential vigor of the Glum?'

Too exhausted to answer the novice question even?

The 'glum is the scum?

[Gazglum]

Didn't mean secret information (though there is always your powers, which you want to keep from scum) but just information about how you reason, willingness to fight, etc. No point in giving that away for nothing early game.

There is a point, because this is a team game (for everyone except poor Goreripper). So by giving away information you are helping your allies read and trust you, so that you can help convince them later on. If you don't give away your thoughts at all, then nobody knows whether to trust you, and they are more likely to side with silver-tongued scum when it counts.

[pindicator]

But seriously, that's twice now you've changed the subject before answering my questions, Gaz.