AYAV? gg all

I don't know what to think anymore.

I put money on this; when Luke and I turn out to be villagers there will be a flock of people in shooing people away from holding Dan to account.

PCCD wrote:

Dan. wrote:

PCCD wrote:Prior to it being banned it was a solid lead and I couldn't understand why some people were so dead set against following it up in favour of random lynchings. Yes there was the possibility for the vampires to mislead us with it but we've still got to work out the clues in the Tweets before we can act on them and considering how obtuse some of them were the vampires may not have bothered trying too mislead us.

I can't fathom your logic. How was it ever a solid lead? Even if - and this is unlikely to the point of being impossible - the twitter told us who the vamps were targeting, how would that be useful info? We can't protect them, save for making them mayor!

If we've got a witch doctor in this then that's two people we can protect, two less deaths per night is a big deal in something like this and we can look at who the targeted were looking at as potential suspects. I don't understand how that can't be considered useful, usable info or why anyone would be so dead set against following it up at all.

While I agree that they could be saying who they were killing sticking in jail and then lynching one isn't really proving anything, as they'd pick someone else, remember the Vamp kills come after the lynching, the only way to have changed anything, would have been to leave both out, and if there's a witch doctor, then the witch doctor should have protected one of them, and if the were obnly 2 vamp kills instead of three, then, you'd know if it is hinting at the right people. Problem is then, after working that out, you'll likely get balls from the tweets.

PCCD wrote:I don't understand how that can't be considered useful, usable info or why anyone would be so dead set against following it up at all.

Because anyone can make a Twitter account and just fill it up with random musings? You could make a Twitter account and just drop hints at anyone you even remotely suspect, without needing any evidence.

I don't see how someone setting up a Twitter and posting on it is even a remotely credible lead as they can post *anything*. If you only slightly suspect someone, but have no evidence, and you posted it in this thread you'd be ripped to shreds. How does posting random stuff on Twitter suddenly turn it into a credible lead?

It's also possible that people could post from 'beyond the grave' using Twitter, as we've absolutely no way to track the source. It's just far too full of holes to be thought about seriously.

I'm really not buying PCCD's arguments here. His reasoning for the PMs is that he doesn't know how Retweets work. I really find that hard to believe, if I'm being perfectly honest with you. He's also is convinced that the GRVampire twitter thread is fairly important, which again I question, since all they were doing is being cryptic about the vamp's targets after the fact, making any action academic. I really don't understand why people were assuming they were being cryptic about themselves. If that's what they were doing, they are very dumb. Of course, that's assuming the twitter account is run by a vamp, which is unlikely. If it was run by a villager, then it's detrimental.

Delusibeta wrote:I'm really not buying PCCD's arguments here. His reasoning for the PMs is that he doesn't know how Retweets work. I really find that hard to believe, if I'm being perfectly honest with you. He's also is convinced that the GRVampire twitter thread is fairly important, which again I question, since all they were doing is being cryptic about the vamp's targets after the fact, making any action academic. I really don't understand why people were assuming they were being cryptic about themselves. If that's what they were doing, they are very dumb.

I can believe he doesn't know how they work, as I myself have no idea.

Is he new to twitter? Because it took me a while. But if he's not new to twitter than everyone knows what a retweet is

Pedz wrote:

Delusibeta wrote:I'm really not buying PCCD's arguments here. His reasoning for the PMs is that he doesn't know how Retweets work. I really find that hard to believe, if I'm being perfectly honest with you. He's also is convinced that the GRVampire twitter thread is fairly important, which again I question, since all they were doing is being cryptic about the vamp's targets after the fact, making any action academic. I really don't understand why people were assuming they were being cryptic about themselves. If that's what they were doing, they are very dumb.

I can believe he doesn't know how they work, as I myself have no idea.

It's basically goes something like this:

"I'm going to re-post that post". Then it shows up in your Twitter posts, attributed to the original poster.

The GRcade equivalent would be blank quoting.

As I said, it's a really simple concept. I can't believe you don't know how it works.

The Alchemist Penguin wrote:Because anyone can make a Twitter account and just fill it up with random musings? You could make a Twitter account and just drop hints at anyone you even remotely suspect, without needing any evidence.

I don't see how someone setting up a Twitter and posting on it is even a remotely credible lead as they can post *anything*. If you only slightly suspect someone, but have no evidence, and you posted it in this thread you'd be ripped to shreds. How does posting random stuff on Twitter suddenly turn it into a credible lead?

To follow this up, I just did some more maths. I'll spare you the working, but with 19 tweets, assuming each is a seperate and distinct hint, and 57 alive players at the time (3 to be killed), there was a 71.2% chance of at least one of the killed people being named in at least one of the tweets.

It could have been completely random, with no thought behind it whatsoever, and the likelihood is it still would have generated the same "how did it know!?" discussion there was last night. We would be fools to investigate anything else it wrote just because it performed the statistically unsurprising feat of getting one thing right after so many goes.

Delusibeta wrote:

Pedz wrote:

Delusibeta wrote:I'm really not buying PCCD's arguments here. His reasoning for the PMs is that he doesn't know how Retweets work. I really find that hard to believe, if I'm being perfectly honest with you. He's also is convinced that the GRVampire twitter thread is fairly important, which again I question, since all they were doing is being cryptic about the vamp's targets after the fact, making any action academic. I really don't understand why people were assuming they were being cryptic about themselves. If that's what they were doing, they are very dumb.

I can believe he doesn't know how they work, as I myself have no idea.

It's basically goes something like this:

"I'm going to re-post that post". Then it shows up in your Twitter posts, attributed to the original poster.

The GRcade equivalent would be blank quoting.

As I said, it's a really simple concept. I can't believe you don't know how it works.

Never used twitter, ever.

Karl, could you show us the working out of your "maths". I seem to remember in the mafia game you had some nice "maths" when you were a Mafia.

I'd love to make sure you're not doing it again.

If I knew how ReTweets worked I wouldn't have been asking people.

Delusibeta wrote:I'm really not buying PCCD's arguments here. His reasoning for the PMs is that he doesn't know how Retweets work. I really find that hard to believe, if I'm being perfectly honest with you. He's also is convinced that the GRVampire twitter thread is fairly important, which again I question, since all they were doing is being cryptic about the vamp's targets after the fact, making any action academic. I really don't understand why people were assuming they were being cryptic about themselves. If that's what they were doing, they are very dumb. Of course, that's assuming the twitter account is run by a vamp, which is unlikely. If it was run by a villager, then it's detrimental.

Not so. The call & answer tweet came a good hour before the night role deadline giving ample time for witch doctor protection (assuming there is one). If we were to work out who was being targeted before the night role deadline that could give us a lead on who is a vampire which the vigilante could then shoot.

PCCD wrote:If we were to work out who was being targeted before the night role deadline that could give us a lead on who is a vampire which the vigilante could then shoot.

How could we find out a vampire from knowing the target?

StayDead wrote:Karl, could you show us the working out of your "maths". I seem to remember in the mafia game you had some nice "maths" when you were a Mafia.

I'd love to make sure you're not doing it again.

Very well. One moment, I'll take a picture of my whiteboard and upload it.

If a vampire was running that Twitter and they announced like a day in advance that a player was going to be killed wouldn't we act to protect that player by making them mayor or witch doctoring them? Furthermore if the player is actually a vamp it wastes a witch doctor's protection or even gets a vamp into the mayor's office.

Memento Mori wrote:If a vampire was running that Twitter and they announced like a day in advance that a player was going to be killed wouldn't we act to protect that player by making them mayor or witch doctoring them? Furthermore if the player is actually a vamp it wastes a witch doctor's protection or even gets a vamp into the mayor's office.

Exactly. Either the vamps are idiots or the villager running that Twitter account is an idiot.

Forget the twitter now. It's holding us back. We don't know who the twitter actually was and it could have been someone not even playing who made it. Just move on.

The Alchemist Penguin wrote:

PCCD wrote:If we were to work out who was being targeted before the night role deadline that could give us a lead on who is a vampire which the vigilante could then shoot.

How could we find out a vampire from knowing the target?

Person A has been going after person B for quite some time and the idea of lynching person B is gaining traction but not enough for person A to made mayor or for them to gain any mass support. Vampires decide to off person A while the problem is still small with the aim of shooing people away from following up person A's ideas dismissing them as "nonsensical". A reference to person A is made in the tweets before the actual killing which proves person A is on to something, vigilante then shoots person B while assuming there is one, a witchdoctor protects person A. Anyone who was backing person B or was dismissing person A then comes under suspicion.

For those not good at following maths, what I did there was take a pool of 57 players, define that 3 are killed, and then consider a pool of a predictions. I get an expression for the probability of getting greater than or equal to 1 prediction for who is killed right out of those a predictions, assuming those predictions are random. Subbing 19 (the number of tweets) in for a, the expression gives 0.7117, equivalent to 71.2% (3 s.f.).

It occurs to me that I probably would have been better off just doing 1 - P(FFF), but it gives the same answer so what the hey.