Elements Mafia 34 - by Elbirn

[BeefSupreme]

I will change my vote if you admit your statistics are wrong.

I think you're trying to use my statistics as a red herring for the other, more important thing I said earlier.

Spoiler for Hidden:

From my point of view, last Mafia, both Demagog and Terroking both were very active in trying to figure out who the Mafia were here. And, as luck would have it, they were both innocents.
They both made very good points and were basically the main detectives in trying to figure this thing out.

The way that Demagog rushed to kill one of the most active civilians last game makes me suspicious. Seeing as how they were both innocents last game, that makes it more likely that one of them is Mafia this game. So, if Demagog were Mafia this game, it would make sense that Demagog would want to kill someone who is active and actually trying to figure out who Mafia are.

So far, I've seen no reason why Terroking would be Mafia, so why kill someone who could be an asset to us if he is innocent? The only reason I could see is that this is Mafia trying to eliminate the strongest links. Also, let's not forget who the first vote last round was..

Spoiler for Hidden:

Well I'm innocent so we all know what that means...

Terroking - 1 (Demagog)

It's just a hunch, but if you're just going to keep voting for Terro until he's dead instead of actually trying to figure out who the Mafia are, then you're no help to us, anyways.
inb4 Mafia kills me next round

Also, I will not say my statistics are wrong, because they're not. Fippe's example was not an accurate representation of what I said. Let me explain why:
He said that if you roll one six-side die, you have a 1/6 chance of rolling a 6. That part is correct.
Where it is not correct is when you said: "Even if you get a six 10 times in a row, the chance of you then getting a six the 11th time is still 1/6."
That is false. By that logic, I would have a 1/6 chance to roll a 6 100 times in a row, which is definitely false. (like, seriously, I'm confused how you can say this stuff is wrong. I learned this in 3rd grade)

A correct interpretation of my statistics would be as follows:
If you rolled a 6-sided die 10 times, you have a 1/6 chance to get a 6 EACH INDIVIDUAL TIME. However, your chance of rolling a 6 twice IN A ROW is not 1/6, rather 1/36. So on and so forth.
Your chances of rolling a 6 three times IN A ROW is 1/216.
So on and so forth...
Your chances of rolling ten 6s IN A ROW is 1/60,466,176.

Similarly, your chance of being Mafia was 4/17. Substitute "chance of rolling a 6" for "chance of being Mafia" and you get the product of my post.
I'm stupid.

Either way, since this was greeted with such negativity, I will just refer you to my other points about Demagog.

BeefSupreme (3) - Mort, Fippe94, Demagog
Mort (2) - Killsdazombies, 1world24
Demagog (2) - dawn to dusk, BeefSupreme
1world24 (1) - Laxadarap

Even if I die, I want my vote to go to the most logical choice I can think of.
(And as a sidenote, perhaps Demagog greeted my statistics with such hostility because they say he has a slightly above average chance of being Mafia this game)

[mathman101]

BeefSupreme (3) - Mort, Fippe94, Demagog
Mort (2) - Killsdazombies, 1world24
Demagog (3) - dawn to dusk, BeefSupreme, mathman101
1world24 (1) - Laxadarap

something about demagog just doesn't seem right this time around.

and I'm pretty sure that some of that statistic stuff might be bologna.

[off-topic]
Fact: did you know that 68% of statistics are made up on the spot. err.... maybe its 86%....
[on-topic]

I usually go with my gut for finding the mafias, and mostly I've been ok so far in the few mafias I've been in.

[Demagog]

Again, statistics don't work that way. Yes, rolling a number 10 times in a row is unlikely; however, if you have rolled a particular number nine times in a row already, you are just as likely to roll that number a tenth time as you are to roll any other particular number, 1/6. That is where you are wrong.

I'm not the only person who has been telling you this, and just so you know, there is nothing wrong with being wrong. That being said, I have given you a chance to save yourself by admitting your folly.

The chance that someone started the game as mafia was 1/5. That is true for each person in this game. Right now there is a 2/9 chance a person is mafia. Those are the only statistics "usable" in the game at the moment.

I have already told you why I voted for Terro; I did not ignore you. I'm not even bothering to defend myself because it's quite clear that your "analysis" makes little sense, if any. Accuse me when you have something solid and not pure speculation.

And let me show you where you proved your own statistics wrong:

If you rolled a 6-sided die 10 times, you have a 1/6 chance to get a 6 EACH INDIVIDUAL TIME.

That is what we are talking about. This game is an individual time. Its own roll of the die, if you will. It is completely independent of all previous mafia games and all mafia games to follow. Regardless of whether previous games happened or not, the chance that a person started as mafia is 1/5. End of story. I'm done trying to teach this to you, but my offer still stands.

[Rutarete]

BeefSupreme (3) - Mort, Fippe94, Demagog
Mort (2) - Killsdazombies, 1world24
Demagog (3) - dawn to dusk, BeefSupreme, mathman101
1world24 (1) - Laxadarap
mathman101 (1) - Rutarete

Mafia /= a statistics argument.

The statistics don't persuade me of any particular person.

So I'll stick to RNG for the moment.

[BeefSupreme]

So I'll stick to RNG for the moment.

This is what bothers me about how you guys play Mafia.
This is how the Mafia win.

5/20 people are Mafia, so if you just RNG it, there's a 75% chance that you kill an innocent.
Well, I suppose since two innocents are dead now, 5/18 people are Mafia. Still only a 28% chance you'll find a Mafia member.
The way to find out who Mafia are isn't by going to random.com and choosing a number between 1 and 20 and voting for that person.

You make assumptions, even if they're completely outrageous, and see how the person reacts to your assumption. You might notice things you wouldn't normally hear that person say or think and draw your suspicions from that.
If the whole game is just a big game of eliminating one person one after another and seeing who's still alive in the end, then there's not a whole lot of fun in it.

You can vote however you want, albeit by RNG or whatever; but if you're a civvy, and you're voting based on RNG at this point in the game, then you're more than likely to hurt your team rather than help it.

[Annele]

Firstly, your 3rd grade school sucked, Beef, if they taught you that.

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e. independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false.

Before 2004, my parents had 2 children, both girls. The fact that two female sperm were the ones that got to the centre of the egg before has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on any sperm later on. It was a COMPLETE 50/50 CHANCE whether my newest sibling was going to be a boy or a girl. (Sorry for using genetics as the example - it's what's fresh on my mind atm.)
Being mafia in a previous game does not make my chance of being mafia ths round any lower than 25%, just like the rest of you. (I'm not, but that's beside the point.)

The two events are INDEPENDENT. No, that does not mean there is a 1/6 chance of rolling 100 sixes. It means EACH INDIVIDUAL ROLL has a 1/6 chance of being a six, and added up, this results in a much lower chance.

THE DICE, RAMDOM.ORG, AND OTHER FORMS OF RNG HAVE NO MEMORY. This is stuff I learnt in year 4. (Turned 8 that year)


Sadly, stuffed up statistics isn't a reason to kill a person. Acting suspiciously, while still not a very good reason, is a better reason than the former.

BeefSupreme (3) - Mort, Fippe94, Demagog
Mort (2) - Killsdazombies, 1world24
Demagog (4) - dawn to dusk, BeefSupreme, mathman101, Annele
1world24 (1) - Laxadarap
mathman101 (1) - Rutarete

[Demagog]

Prove I've acted suspiciously. So far I've voted for Terro as I always do, and voted for Beef just because I don't like his reasoning. Nothing suspicious about that.

I'm interested in hearing what you can come up with.

[BeefSupreme]

Prove I've acted suspiciously. So far I've voted for Terro as I always do, and voted for Beef just because I don't like his reasoning. Nothing suspicious about that.

I'm interested in hearing what you can come up with.

Not sure what the technical term for what you just did is, but you tried to make my arguments against you sound irrelevant and then told me I need arguments against you (which I've already provided).
My thoughts about your voting against Terro seem like reason enough for me personally to vote for you over other people. As I said, I'm not a fan of letting RNG pick off people, and prefer much more to try and make the best choice.

Then you try to votekill me, when I have done literally nothing so far but try and help (and refute your red herring about my statistics). Even if you don't like my statistics or whatever, the fact that I have done nothing thus far to show the slightest bit of Mafia-ism is reason enough not to votekill me yet. Actually, Annele just did exactly that: "Sadly, stuffed up statistics isn't a reason to kill a person." If you don't like what I have to say, that's fine, but if you were a civilian, then you wouldn't try to kill someone who is genuinely trying to help.

Spoiler for Hidden:

Firstly, your 3rd grade school sucked, Beef, if they taught you that.

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, then it will happen less frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e. independent trials of a random process), this belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false.

Before 2004, my parents had 2 children, both girls. The fact that two female sperm were the ones that got to the centre of the egg before has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on any sperm later on. It was a COMPLETE 50/50 CHANCE whether my newest sibling was going to be a boy or a girl. (Sorry for using genetics as the example - it's what's fresh on my mind atm.)
Being mafia in a previous game does not make my chance of being mafia ths round any lower than 25%, just like the rest of you. (I'm not, but that's beside the point.)

The two events are INDEPENDENT. No, that does not mean there is a 1/6 chance of rolling 100 sixes. It means EACH INDIVIDUAL ROLL has a 1/6 chance of being a six, and added up, this results in a much lower chance.

THE DICE, RAMDOM.ORG, AND OTHER FORMS OF RNG HAVE NO MEMORY. This is stuff I learnt in year 4. (Turned 8 that year)


Sadly, stuffed up statistics isn't a reason to kill a person. Acting suspiciously, while still not a very good reason, is a better reason than the former.

BeefSupreme (3) - Mort, Fippe94, Demagog
Mort (2) - Killsdazombies, 1world24
Demagog (4) - dawn to dusk, BeefSupreme, mathman101, Annele
1world24 (1) - Laxadarap
mathman101 (1) - Rutarete

After a little research, the Gambler's Fallacy actually supports my argument rather than refutes it.

...if one flips a fair coin 21 times, then the probability of 21 heads is 1 in 2,097,152.

See Bayes' theorem

You guys keep thinking in the terms that this Mafia and last Mafia are two completely independent events, when they are actually not.
I am thinking of this Mafia and last Mafia as two recurring events (similar to the coin toss example above or my dice-rolling example).
Here, I will do a DIRECT comparison:

If you roll a dice two times, you have a 1/6 chance to roll a 6 EACH INDIVIDUAL TIME.
If you choose Mafia members at random (last game), you have a 4/17 chance to be Mafia. If you choose Mafia members at random (this game), you have a 5/20 chance to be Mafia.
Although EACH INDIVIDUAL TIME, the odds of rolling a 6 are 1/6. If you analyze the data as a SET of data, and not individual fragments, the probability that you roll a 6 two times IN A ROW is 1/36.
Although EACH INDIVIDUAL GAME, the odds of being Mafia were 4/17 and 5/20 respectively EACH INDIVIDUAL GAME. If you analyze the data as a SET of data, and not individual fragments, the probability that those who were Mafia last round are also Mafia this round (TWO CONSECUTIVE ROUNDS) is 1/17.

If this is too confusing for people, we can just drop it. I'm tired of the arguments over this. It wasn't meant to be a topic of debate, rather a means of using what knowledge we have to logically use a process of elimination to see who the Mafia is most likely. It's better to go off of some information for your death votes than to go off of RNG, because then the Mafia win.

[Fippe94]

And again, that is not how it works. I'm honestly not sure if you are trolling at this point or are just wrong.

Let's assume you throw 2 dice and let me guess the result. There are 1/36 chance to get the sum 12, so it is very inlikely.
However, let us now assume that you reveal that the first die were actually a six. Suddenly the chance of you having gotten 12 is 1/6 from my perspective.

The same is true for these mafia games. If you told someone to guess how many times x person was mafia, if he ddin't know the result, the chance is 1/17 that the answer is twice. However, if you reveal that x was mafia last time, the chance of the answer being twice suddenly jumps up to 1/4, Since if we know one pasrt of the answer already, we can't use it in probability calculations anymore, since the probability of x being mafia last round (and you throwing a six with the first die) is now 1.

If you just admit you were wrong, it's ok, we all do mistakes. But just keep sticking to fals info either makes you look either stupid or suspicious, neither of which is good for you. And again, if you were trolling, this just means you are probably mafia.

[Demagog]

Our point is you can't do that; that's not how probability works. Your logic is flawed, so your reasoning for trying to lynch me is terrible and a huge blunder. The fact that you can't seem to understand this means you're either mafia or trolling, and I don't want either in this game.

And if you are trying to be meta about mafia, you would have paid attention to past mafias in which I go out of my way to lynch people that aren't playing well, regardless of whether or not I think they are mafia (obviously known mafia trumps this). You are just as likely as I am to be mafia.

Assuming you're a civilian, you're gonna feel real dumb if I'm lynched. And if you're mafia, I'll have to congratulate you on getting people to lynch me with such horrible reasoning.

So let's see. Your reasoning for voting for me is because I wasn't mafia last game and I voted for Terro. I, and numerous others, have already proven why your first reason is wrong, and I have already told you that I always vote for Terro until someone gives me a good reason to vote for them. You have given me a good reason to vote for you because if you're a civilian then your play is terrible, and if you're mafia then it's a good vote on my part.

If you have done nothing to indicate you are mafia, then neither have I. Every single action I've taken this game is in line with how I play every single mafia game as a civilian. If you're going to try to be meta about this game, I am one of the absolute worst people for you to try and lynch.

[BeefSupreme]

I've read everything you guys have said and tried to compare it to what I've said, but none of that made any sense to me up until this:

Let's assume you throw 2 dice and let me guess the result. There are 1/36 chance to get the sum 12, so it is very inlikely.
However, let us now assume that you reveal that the first die were actually a six. Suddenly the chance of you having gotten 12 is 1/6 from my perspective.

That actually makes a lot of sense, now that I think about it. Thank you, Fippe, for trying to explain it to me instead of going full-on rage mode like Demagog.
Now guess who feels stupid? Me. Anywho, that was just my young-person ignorance showing itself. I blame living in the 49th least funded state in the US for Education
Despite all of that, I still believe Demagog should be lynched.

Seeing as I am a civilian, I won't miss you one bit when you're gone, Dema, if this is how you play games.

sometimes some of you people forget this is a game, jeezus

[Annele]

After a little research, the Gambler's Fallacy actually supports my argument rather than refutes it.

No it doesn't. That would mean it isn't a Fallacy at all. However, you seem to be insistent to be wrong, so I will leave you in your wrongness.
(Just answer me this: How does the formula random.org uses change depending on previous mafia?)

I'll stick by my vote for dema only because we don't have any other leads. If he's a civy, I suggest we vote for beefsupreme.