Thanks for posting this, Hoya.

I wonder, though, whether being a bad villager generally makes one a better wolf?

if you are a bad villager you should just be lynched a lot anyway

Yes, they have.

You're still having a different conversation.

What you're really talking about is you don't make reads based on votes at all. That's not this thread.

I'm trying to talk about data -> conclusion, and what would be an erroneous conclusion from that data.

You're trying to talk about examples that prove these wrong in real games.

I'm dead serious, start another thread about how to make reads in real situations. That would also be beneficial, but it's not this conversation.

Yes, ****ty villagers are by definition decent wolves because it's harder to differentiate their ****ty and detrimental village game from their detrimental wolf game.

EDIT: Also what pwns said.

You're still in real world land and you're begging me to enter into the tonereading vs. data argument, which I think is really tired and almost always handled totally incorrectly.

I will say this: I don't believe that in real games your reads are independent of who is pushing whom.

I know you don't care/it's not what this is about, but I would guess when 4 and 5 happen IRL it is more often someone thinks someones a wolf because of like tone or something then looks for a way to convince other people, THEN when they are convinced their reasoning is wrong they still think they are a wolf because they have a sick soul read

I am not trying to be difficult, I don't get what you're saying.

Hero claims to suspect A, but we are forced by the assumptions to assume a neutral read. You say the only data is A's vote, therefore Hero suspects A based on his vote.

My counter is reads based on just the facts of a vote are worthless before the roles are known. I don't think that people do that.

Yeah that's pretty much what I said in the example, and I think that's true. If a villager wants to do this, I think:

1. They shouldn't be lying about the support for their read.

2. They should just say "**** it, it's just a soul read, go with me or don't" in the thread

/end real world discussion

Which example again?

EDIT: I mean the easy answer is I said everyone neutral unless otherwise stated, and where I give Hero a preexisting read our data just includes that read, doesn't matter for purposes of logical coherency moving forward where that read came from.

I think the most common mistake villagers make is not re-evaluating their reads. Too many times do I see people decide a player is a villager day one and completely forget about them for the rest of the game. You need to keep re-evaluating player alignments with the new information. A great example is the Harry Potter game that just ended. derwipok is great at going unnoticed as a wolf. People tend to decide early that he has been villagery enough to leave alone and forget about him for the rest of the game. Chips & Co being willing to seriously re-evaluate their derwipok read won them the game.

The spite voting is a bit of a problem too, but I think it's pretty instinctive to see someone voting someone you know is a villager (yourself) and deciding that they must therefore be a wolf. Checking for thought processes is usually a good way to tell if they have genuinely misread you are are just making an excuse to vote a villager.

I think TCi is right here. Example number 2 is a bad example because literally no one makes reads on someone based solely on who they are voting. Reads based on votes are 100% of the time based on things surrounding the vote, such as reasons and timings.

Some of the other examples are good though, although someone made a good point regarding example 5, in that if you assume wolves are less likely to vote other wolves then someone voting for you, a villager, is inherently more likely to be a wolf (assuming villagers and wolves vote an equal number of times).

I guess if I have a real world goal in this thread, it's that from these basic precepts people understand that they need to weight their reads against actions that suggest their reads are not correct, and then proceed accordingly.

.

The example doesn't say Hero makes the read BASED ON the voting. The example says the data is what it is, and Hero makes a mistake given that data. That's all it says. The entire point is that Hero's error is logically absurd, which is what TCI is objecting to.

He's wrong that no one makes reads based on voting, but w/e.

The upshot is supposed to be that in the real world, if two players do identical things, and you read them differently, you just need to be able to justify, at least in your head, why, and that will be the {meta, history, tone} thing.

EDIT: Like, the whole point is to get people to recognize where a conclusion would not make sense without other data. I'm hoping that people are motivated to think about that other data.

Still not following you.