Bay 12 Games Forum

I guess I'll use my standard XCOM character submission.

Name: King George IX
Nickname: King George IX
Nationality: Thinks he is British
Gender: Male
Class: Shinobi
Style: In keeping with his kingly delusions, he likes others to do things for him, especially shoot. Of course, he doesn't mind slicing aliens in half from time to time. [George can also be used as a meatshield for actually useful members of the team as long as you don't tell him ]
Customization options: I don't know what options there are, but I would prefer something that resembles a crown. And maybe red/blue/white armor to match the colors of the British flag. Anything to make him either look like an insane asylum escapee or like the King of England would be fine, really.

I can get behind a Hector13 lynch. Mostly to find out info about everyone else. I am slightly concerned that doll still sees himself in the running for being lynched, though - if hector flips scum I'm going to take a very careful look at what doll has done so far.

I'm pretty sure there's an error in the following, my additions in Bold Purple

Quote from: TheDarkStar on January 31, 2017, 09:44:06 pm

Spoiler: probability tree (click to show/hide)

3/5:
    2/4:
           win
    2/4:
           2/3
                win
              1/2 - win
              1/2 - lose
                       
           1/3
                lose
2/5:
     3/4
          2/3
              1/2 - win
              1/2 - lose
          1/3
               lose
     1/4
          lose

Which is what I put here:

Quote from: doll on January 31, 2017, 09:12:45 am

The probability for a win from this is exactly even.

Spoiler: ugly calculations with worse annotations (click to show/hide)

T3/5*T2/4 = 30% chance win
T3/5*M2/4*T2/3*T1/2 = 10% chance win
T3/5*M2/4*T2/3*M1/2 = 10% chance loss
T3/5*M2/4*M1/3 = 10% chance loss
M2/5*T3/4*T2/3*T1/2 = 10% chance win
Remainder = 30% chance loss

Whoops, you're right.

Conveniently, this setup allows me to issue ultimatums (it lets you do so too).
I will not vote for any player who has not adequately outlined their position on the following (agreeing with another player is fine):
Is this setup townsided?
If not, is there any reason not to use the 'unlynchable martyr' technique and just have a town player claim, avoid lynches, and generate the lynches for the town using random.org (or w/e)?

1. Yes, see my analysis below.
2. If one town player volunteers to not be lynched and picks lynches at random, then they have these odds in lynching town: Day 1: 3/5; Day 2: 2/4 or 3/4; Day 3: [1/3 - this would be a win already] or 2/3 or [3/3 - this would be a loss] or 2/3, depending on the events of the previous day; Day 4: [2/2 - this would be a loss] or 1/2  or [2/2 - this would be a loss] or 1/2, also depending on the lynches of the game. Adding up the probabilities, we get a (3/5)(2/4) + (3/5)(2/4)(2/3) + (2/5)(3/4)(2/3)(1/2) = 60% chance to win and a (3/5)(2/4)(1/3) + (2/5)(1/4) + (2/5)(3/4)(1/3) + (2/5)(3/4)(2/3)(1/2) = 40% chance to lose. Let's do it.

TDS
Where did you go?

Right here .

---

The probability for a win from this is exactly even.

Spoiler: ugly calculations with worse annotations (click to show/hide)

T3/5*T2/4 = 30% chance win
T3/5*M2/4*T2/3*T1/2 = 10% chance win
T3/5*M2/4*T2/3*M1/2 = 10% chance loss
T3/5*M2/4*M1/3 = 10% chance loss
M2/5*T3/4*T2/3*T1/2 = 10% chance win
Remainder = 30% chance loss

Not quite, see my analysis earlier.

TDS, fillipk
Why did you unvote hector?
Why did you both unvote, when he wasn't at L-1 after fillipk unvoted?

As hector self-voted, I saw him as much more scummy. Hence, I unvoted to signal that.

Practically everything Trump has done has made me really uncomfortable so far. Running on a populist platform but then actually putting a bunch of businessmen in his cabinet, wanting to remove all kinds of legal protections for people, advancing isolationist foreign policy, etc.

And it's only week 1.

Isn't a religious test against the Constitution?

afaik trump is temporarily banning immigration from several Muslim countries and wants to have much stronger vetting of Muslims, which seems really borderline - he can claim there are safety concerns for immigration from war-torn countries, but limiting Muslim immigration in general seems like it violates religious freedom.

Ah, but the Constitution only says that a test of religion or law establishing it is forbidden, and is clearly written from the perspective of a genuine religious conviction. It doesn't cover mandating falsely saying you're a Christian and living a restricted Christian lifestyle on pain of death, as I'm sure Trump understands better than most. You can still secretly be something else, fully Constitutional.

Yes it does cover that - the first amendment specifically states that the government can't make laws about establishing religions or limiting people's religious expression (admittedly, they haven't always followed this, but hopefully with a new Supreme Court Justice who uses very literal and old readings, at least this right will be protected - that kind of situation is exactly what the religious clause of the first amendment was designed to prevent).

As far as I can tell, it's safe to put two votes on someone but not any more in case they are scum.

hector13, what do you think of this conclusion and how did I arrive at it?

In.

What do you get if you cross the Atlantic Ocean with the Titanic?

He will. If there's one thing people will think of when Trump is mentioned, it's the wall.

He'll build it, but won't necessarily get Mexico to pay for it, 'cause he's an idiot who just says things to either look good or make people do things he wants.

Obviously, he'll build the wall on the promise that Mexico will pay for it (but use US tax dollars instead) and then claim that Mexico paid for it once the wall is built.

...I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually what happened.