Murder By The Book - Ender's Game

Aunty Early slowly rocked in her rocking chair, watching as the others argued and accused each other.

"Dear me, youngens, we shouldn't be fighting like mean little Unicorns. We need to stay strong like my Dragons if we are to find these little beasties who locked us in here. All naughty little Unicorns end up revealing themselves, by words and by action. We should wait for them to make a move, read the tells of the lieing and then burn them in Dragon fire.

No Lynch.

Aunty leaned back. "Would anyone be a dear and bring this old lady a cup of tea by chance?'

Votals Fall Apart

Forgot to include Sotek and Solaris' votes earlier, so I corrected the earlier votals. Not that it matters now.

Solaris - 1 (Garuru)
Granolaman - 1 (Gnauga)
Chwoka - 1 (Nova)
Garuru - 1 (cyber95)
Akumu - 1 (icanhasdonuts)
cyber95 - 1 (Chwoka)
Schazer - 1 (Sotek)
Mirdini - 1 (Solaris)
No Lynch - 2 (Slorange, eberron)
Slorange - 1 (Akumu)

With 21 alive, it takes 11 to lynch and 6 to soft lynch. Deadline is Thursday, March 20 at 11:59 PM Mountain time.

Unvote, VotingOrange because referring to your own meta is hella sketch

Susan sighs through her nostrils. Very elegant. She's remembering why for the most part, she sticks to her stablemates.

Anona sidles (or is that SADDLES) up to Susan. "Hey I heard you thinking about 'saddlemates', you should try thinking quieter, but long story short did you write this book

," he says.

You're adorable, Nova.

I haven't been to many parties like this one, but not attempting to suss out who the killer is only means that they have time to act unimpeded.

If there's 21 of us, and n of us are Undercover (or whatever moral degenerates are using them as a cover), then we can make ceiling((21 - 2n)/2) - 1 = 10 - n mistakes before the game is lost. Costly mistakes, yes, but the alternative is the death of all of us, as Undercover's only possible escape is to step over our corpses.

If we choose wrong, and they wipe another of us out, we'll have one less mistake before we are doomed, 9 - n. If we choose right, then either we have scrubbed Undercover from our midst or the remainder will strike again, leaving us with ceiling((19 - 2(n-1))/2) -1 = 10 - n mistakes.

If we choose to do nothing, then we will be offering one of our innocents on a silver platter, reducing our number to 20 while leaving n Undercover agents. That limits us to ceiling((20 - 2n)/2) - 1 = 9 - n.

Assuming no information, the chance of any of us who aren't Undercover making it out of this alive is maintained or improved by choosing a lynch over no lynch. The expected value of the decision is (n-N)/N, compared to an expected value of no lynch of -1. Unless there's some further information you have that modifies this calculus?

You're adorable, Nova.

I JUST WANNA PLAY MAFIA OK ; A;

None at all, sweetheart! How about we lynch you, though, if that's the most mathematically-sound option?

If you come to a party to enjoy it in the most perfectly optimal manner possible, it ends up being dry and dull and routine. Why bother coming at all at that point? Especially for the person who ends up leaving early because hey, somebody has to. If you head out before anything but the beginning mingling has happened, you certainly haven't enjoyed yourself at all. Why kick somebody out at that point?

But hey, if you think that's reason enough to lynch me, do it. My estate's in order. It certainly won't tell you anything when you do, and it won't tell you anything about anyone else, since the reason for it will be completely unrelated to any kind of search for the mystery writers among us.

Just heads-up, as long as we're talking wills, to get any of my inheritance you all have to spend a night locked in a spooky haunted mansion of my own design. So if you don't wanna go through that don't kill me.

I think I have adequately elucidated why making a choice, even absent any information, is better than not making one, and thus the smallest iota of information should be acted on. Since you know this, and we all know you know this, then persisting in advocating for no choice is that iota.

If you have a demonstrated history of disregarding cold facts for the sake of the "party," regardless of allegience, then perhaps we have nothing to go on after all. Except for Aunty Early's decision to join you in this counter-productive choice.

Please do explain yourself, Early. With a minimum of unicorns and dragons, if you would be so kind.

I haven't been to many parties like this one, but not attempting to suss out who the killer is only means that they have time to act unimpeded.

If there's 21 of us, and n of us are Undercover (or whatever moral degenerates are using them as a cover), then we can make ceiling((21 - 2n)/2) - 1 = 10 - n mistakes before the game is lost. Costly mistakes, yes, but the alternative is the death of all of us, as Undercover's only possible escape is to step over our corpses.

If we choose wrong, and they wipe another of us out, we'll have one less mistake before we are doomed, 9 - n. If we choose right, then either we have scrubbed Undercover from our midst or the remainder will strike again, leaving us with ceiling((19 - 2(n-1))/2) -1 = 10 - n mistakes.

If we choose to do nothing, then we will be offering one of our innocents on a silver platter, reducing our number to 20 while leaving n Undercover agents. That limits us to ceiling((20 - 2n)/2) - 1 = 9 - n.

Assuming no information, the chance of any of us who aren't Undercover making it out of this alive is maintained or improved by choosing a lynch over no lynch. The expected value of the decision is (n-N)/N, compared to an expected value of no lynch of -1. Unless there's some further information you have that modifies this calculus?

Dakota 'ahems' from her corner. "Technically speaking this is algebra not calculus and it is also erroneous to examine the problem as a day-to-day basis. If we were to, say, not murder each other for two days in a row then not only would we maintain our (frankly wavering) moral high ground, but we would also be in a similar, if not identical, position as if we partook in lynching today and chose poorly."

Dakota politely borrows someone's tea, sips and returns it.

"There are indeed benefits from a game theory standpoint to killing one of our compatriots today but the math isn't one of them. Of course you'd know this already if you read my latest teen romance novel Passions of Pythagoras but I suppose that sort of thoughtful camaraderie isn't really your cup of tea, is it dear Kellerman.

Looking up from her sketch book, Early grinned. "Ah, seems like you pulled me out of a trap there dearie. I knew those sneaky Uni's would slip." Glancing over, Early's brow wrinkled into a look of concern. "By chance, what is the nature of your books Mr Orange?"

Unvote, Lynch Slorange

"Keeping quiet about your writing style makes my poor heart worry about the safety of my babies." Early mutters as she holds her sketches closer.

Hey uh, guys? can you not vote by character name? Or at least include the name of the player you're voting for? Makes things easier on Fogel (or myself!) when we're looking to do votals, and it's a tad more courteous to your fellow players. Thanks!

[spoiler]Fuck bitches I do what I want![/b]

Lynch: Akumu then

"The difference, Dakota, is that if we abstain twice we have no hope of NOT making a mistake this time, or of determining who's trying to make the rest of us make a mistake -- Which should be obvious, to someone who claims to have peppered their literature with explanations of the math."

vote: Granolaman.

Charlie and the Votals Factory

Solaris - 1 (Garuru)
Granolaman - 2 (Gnauga, Sotek)
Garuru - 1 (cyber95)
Akumu - 2 (icanhasdonuts, Granolaman)
cyber95 - 1 (Chwoka)
Mirdini - 1 (Solaris)
No Lynch - 1 (Slorange)
Slorange - 3 (Akumu, Nova, eberron)

With 21 alive, it takes 11 to lynch and 6 to soft lynch. Deadline is Thursday, March 20 at 11:59 PM Mountain time.

Dakota 'ahems' from her corner. "Technically speaking this is algebra not calculus and it is also erroneous to examine the problem as a day-to-day basis. If we were to, say, not murder each other for two days in a row then not only would we maintain our (frankly wavering) moral high ground, but we would also be in a similar, if not identical, position as if we partook in lynching today and chose poorly."

Dakota politely borrows someone's tea, sips and returns it.

"There are indeed benefits from a game theory standpoint to killing one of our compatriots today but the math isn't one of them. Of course you'd know this already if you read my latest teen romance novel Passions of Pythagoras but I suppose that sort of thoughtful camaraderie isn't really your cup of tea, is it dear Kellerman.

Dakota, is it? While the title of your latest effort certainly piques my interest, your assertions tonight make me despair for its contents.

Choosing to not choose for two days would indeed leave us in the same position as choosing incorrectly today, but if we make a uniformly random choice we will only choose incorrectly with (N-n)/N likelihood. As I said before, the expected value of choice is better than no choice. In ethical terms, given that the result of failure is death, regardless, we should all be willing to take whatever chance at life we can scrape together.

In following my previous comment that the best course at this juncture is to act on whatever bit of information we have, however scant, I feel that Aunt Early's actions are deeply suspicious. Perhaps she did not recognize the danger in inaction, and then when it was pointed out agreed with my initial assessment of its suggestion being in itself suspicious. But given Slorange's "joie de vivre" explanation for their actions, it can read also as twice trying to push forward decisions that they know are in Undercover's interests.

Unvote: Slorange
Vote: Aunt "eberron" Early

Looking up from her sketch book, Early grinned. "Ah, seems like you pulled me out of a trap there dearie. I knew those sneaky Uni's would slip."

Um, excuse me.

I think you're jumping to a few too many conclusions, and proclaiming some sort of far-fetched 'trap' of sorts without actually providing any meaningful reasoning or conclusions to your apparent findings.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but regardless I find it far more suspicious to jump on something so flawed than to take a completely reasonable personal stand.

That said, I don't think proclaiming that we will definitely not be coming to any conclusions today is a rather poor idea too, at least at this point. Though certainly not killing is the more moral and can be the more sensible option at times, by saying that's going to be the case from square one would rather take away any sort of threat and discourage active discussion, would it not?

Vote: eberron

Yeah, let's lynch that old lady! Vote: eberron

Early turns her eyes to Kellerman. "Dear me, I try to agree with you and suddenly you see me as the enemy. Perhaps the logic you are using is too much for us to understand and is leaving us too confused to see the truth. But if you truely want action, dearie, then action I can do."

Unvote,
Lynch Akuma

Action as in pushing to kill someone simply for finding you suspicious? Or is there something else I'm missing, because otherwise I can say I'm even more sure of my suspicions already.

Early turns her eyes to Kellerman. "Dear me, I try to agree with you and suddenly you see me as the enemy. Perhaps the logic you are using is too much for us to understand and is leaving us too confused to see the truth. But if you truely want action, dearie, then action I can do."

Unvote,
Lynch Akuma

Yeah, let's lynch that old lady! Vote: eberron

vote: Chwoka

Early turns her eyes to Kellerman. "Dear me, I try to agree with you and suddenly you see me as the enemy. Perhaps the logic you are using is too much for us to understand and is leaving us too confused to see the truth. But if you truely want action, dearie, then action I can do."

Unvote,
Lynch Akuma

Is Kellerman Akumu

Was that an OMGUS

Idk it looked like an OMGUS vote eberron

Aunty leans back with a sigh as many an eye turn her way. "Perhaps I became too defensive but it seems odd to suspect someone for agreeing with your own thoughts. This old mind felt there was sound logic but I guess it just made me seem like just a wagon jumper." Sighing again, she looks up. "Then again, I dont think I'm the only one to follow someone's thoughts."

At this point a previously silent figure unfolds herself from a comfortable chair. "I daresay it's too soon to bandy accusations about. Aren't we here for a party?" Alice looks at the assembled guests. "I don't know about you, but I could murder a cup of tea, if you'll pardon the expression."

KITCHEN SAUNTER GO