araver

I don't understand. W U O _ _ still gives the same results: QUOTE - 2 WROTE - 2 QUITE - 1 SLOTS - 1 EDIT: And why are you arguing my logic? It's +5 for you

How about W U O _ _ ? (granted it's a stretch).

perimetry

No problem SLOTS

murmuring

WROTE

adrenalin Scratch that since it's misspelled. mutineers

QUOTE

Not what I wanted for D1. Too much inactivity, so little information

Sorry I did not reply sooner Yes, I am agreeing with that definition of randomness. There's just a tiny difference - previous states dictate the range of possibilities (aka the rules) of future events in a larger sense of causality. But if you agree that previous states actually determine the probability of future events, it's one darker shade of grey than what I'm comfortable with. E.g. there's nothing inconsistent in saying that previous states may determine that the result of a coin flip is either head or tails, but not directly determine the probability to be 50-50. There's not anything mathematically wrong with non-deterministic universes in which the notion of probability cannot be developed/ascertained for sure. Yes, it sounds counter-intuitive and yes, it does not sound like our universe, but this is why I keep maintaining these two concepts distinct: non-determinism and random-ordered non-determinism. If some god-like character, outside the universe, were to evaluate the state of a non-deterministic universe, he could just narrow down the possibilities not state one exact deterministic way it would go. It still preserves some sort of free-will while still giving him a sort-of-all-knowing thing. But it would be simpler to not have such a character as an all-knowing observer. That way, locally, my free-will can actually count if no one's looking Not that much into physics actually, and I did not read all the posts in the thread before posting, so I guess I do have a different view of free-willness that I advocated. The tiny-idea was that choosing is done at the precise moment where you choose one outcome out of many possible outcomes bounded by a set of non-deterministic rules. It is conceivable (to me) that the universe exists because many entities/agents choose outcomes that interact between themselves and determine the next state (It's hard not to think linearly at this or impose a sequencing or order to it). I'd like to think that we're such agents, but at the level we're perceiving it (brain, senses, consciousness), it looks deterministic. I do not know if a soul qualifies as an entity in such a theory. I'm not sure if I'm making sense right now. If I'm not, I'll try to clarify once I get rid of the flu

Glyc, OK, I get it. Sorry if I sounded too harsh. I don't really know what to vote and there's little time left in D1. Don't think pressure's going to work with so many inactives and it might actually get someone lynched with 2 votes. Hosts: MissKitten and Prince_Marth85 1. Glycereine - Voting for araver 2. EDM - Voting for Framm18 3. maurice - killed by the Baddies 4. Framm18 - Voting for Little Miss Sunshine 5. woon 6. Vipe195 7. araver - voting for Vipe195 8. Little Miss Sunshine 9. LJ - voted for woon 10. Vineetrika - voting for LJ 11. slick - voting for Harvey 12. Harvey

Glyc, seriously, the first line is actually a little insulting. Baddies know who Holmes is, granted. Holmes knows who you are, granted. Why would Holmes show himself to indies? Only incentive to not stay quiet and show himself is if that you are an important baddie/indie. If I were Holmes, I wouldn't come out and push a lynch towards you unless you were Moriarty (which case goodie wins) - the risk of not being trusted and possibly exposing Watson by trying to push the lynching process. At most I might feel inclined if I knew you were Lestrade - in which case I would eliminate the indy kill and wouldn't care if the other indie knows me, since after the lynch all the goodies will be convinced that I'm Holmes. It might make it an easier game for the goodie or not. Or maybe it wouldn't be worth the risk. Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to have my own. I don't see the flaw in my logic. I would play it that way. I just removed my vote *because* no one else voted for you. And your fixation with I'm flawed or I'm bad is starting to annoy me.

I'm not pinning him down for that role. I'm not sure if a simpler explanation would have been easier, I think I always over-post on BD (puzzles and riddles too). Maybe that's not so good for mafia idk. I chose to explain my reason simply because me sharing it does not tell the baddies or indies anything more. Imagine you're me. No actual information other than the night-post, starting spreadsheet. 12 roles total. First row Glyc. Glyc spied by Holmes. Subtract Holmes, Glyc's not Holmes unless he was redirected to himself. Subtract Watson (Holmes spying Watson is a waste unless it was redirected - 2 redirecters among 12 roles). Subtract me. 9 roles possible. Wording suggests Moriarty spied Holmes who spied Glyc. If I were a host, I would choose a different wording for the case where Glyc=Moriarty and the sequence is actually a circle, but that's not 100 %sure (also if I were a host, I would not post spies, so it's not 100% actually usable as a deduction). Subtract Moriarty then. 8 roles possibles probability 50% to be goodie. So Occam's razor (no redirects involved) means 50/50. Better chance than random, go with that. Now the two minimal events that were left out are: A) sequence being a circle - all the better in favor of voting for Glyc. B) Holmes got redirected. Worst case he spied himself or Watson too. Best case he spied Moriarty (see sequence A). Worst case just means I can't eliminate the cases as in the analysis above and I'm back to random. Overall, still better than random. Seriously, I would really wanna now what is wrong with this type of thinking? Came back after half a day (night in my timezone) to see more votes. Figured if Glyc is bad either Holmes or Watson can vote for him after some votes are in (saying for pressure or anything), making my assumption valid. Equally true, Glyc is good and some baddie/indie bandwagons on him (declaring almost the same thing). No votes on him mean that Holmes/Watson don't want to jump on it (meaning either Glyc's a goodie or not an important baddie/indie like Moriarty) and that baddies don't wanna bandwagon either (inactives/don't care, idk). Either way, no votes mean a tip of the balance for Glyc not being baddie/indie, or not at least an important one. So almost back to square 1. No other important info in the thread, change vote to pressure someone else. Still long till the end of day. On an unrelated note, the flu is finally starting to get to me, so I think this is my last fully conscious post before my brain starts to melt

COINS

It's a nice thought and I had it too before posting. But you are missing something. However, based on your idea I can modify my idea to do it in 3 steps:

Unless I'm missing something, it can be done in less turns.

That a FIRST I think - 3 nils in a row.

Wait, I'm confused now. From "Holmes watched Glycereine through his window, and learned from his amazing powers of deduction who he was. He was unaware that he was being watched by Moriarty all the time." I read the sequence Moriarty spies Holmes who in turn spies Glycereine. What does "if a baddie would spy themselves on N1" mean?

Not really. And since you're voting for me (and because of Framm's gift), I now need to tell you why I did that: I did not vote blindly or randomly. I actually thought that it's better to choose you rather than choose randomly. From what I read in the night post, not one goodie, but two goodies know who you are (goodie BTSC). Doubtful you are one of them spying on yourself. There is an off-chance that you're Moriarty in which case you are the goodie's wincon, but that's a stretch because of the wording of the nightpost. Other than that, there are 4 goodie/4 baddie+indie roles left which makes it a fair 50-50 chance that you're not goodie. Plus, that very small chance that you are Moriarty does tip the 50-50 balance, because lynching you in that case would fullfil the goodie wincon (we can't have lost majority). So the odds are better in your case than 6/5 for choosing someone randomly (and not knowing whether maurice was goodie or indie). I was the second to vote (and about to get some sleep - it was 4am in my time-zone), so I did not see any other posted information (except a seemingly random vote). I'm a logical type of person and that is reasoning behind my vote. I did not expect anyone to vote for/bandwagon on you, other than the case that you're Moriarty and then lynching you is actually more important than outing roles. It was worth a try. Plus if I'm right it gave me an information on who not to vote, so I actually have more information than before voting All of that still does not tell me who to vote next, so I'm adding to someone else's pressure for now. My reasoning is that in a 7/3/2 game distribution with 4 kill roles we either start exchanging information soon, or we have to shoot randomly. BTW my name is araver, not avarer Hosts: MissKitten and Prince_Marth85 1. Glycereine - Voting for araver 2. EDM 3. maurice - killed by the Baddies 4. Framm18 - Voting for araver 5. woon 6. Vipe195 7. araver - Voting for Harvey 8. Little Miss Sunshine 9. LJ - voted for woon 10. Vineetrika 11. slick-voting forHarvey 12. Harvey @Miss Kitten - What are the rules on D1 lynch ending in a tie? No lynch or random lynch?

I haven't see much action in the night-post - guess most people either didn't do anything or wasn't mentioned). So, I'm picking one that made it to the night-post to ask questions. Glyc, what do you say? Hosts: MissKitten and Prince_Marth85 1. Glycereine 2. EDM 3. maurice - killed by the Baddies 4. Framm18 5. woon 6. Vipe195 7. araver - voted for Glycereine 8. Little Miss Sunshine 9. LJ - voted for woon 10. Vineetrika 11. slick 12. Harvey I'll be back in a long while since it's 4am right now for me, but I'll be back to hear and change my vote if necessary.