Yes, that's also true. I did use the word "if" at the start of my post!

but you do like to present one-sided arguments, like with you maths above :)

If we were all fence sitters, we'd never get anywhere.

ah no, but I start to get a feeling of which side of the fence you are on.

Great, so we get a claim from Pazzer, one that does make some sense and in a way clears flubbucket (I don't recall scum usual being that target of lynchers, but honestly I dunno if it occurs or not).

However I am tempted to say that we should not try to get a new lynch in now - because I highly doubt we can get it done in the last minute as P1na also said, and I must agree with amok in this situation we need to know with certainty if Pazzer is truthful even if it makes sense. We can't just clear both him and flub + increase the chance for a no-lynch.

As such given Pazzer's claim I'll be changing my vote to Pazzer in the hope that the "lynchers target is usually town" is true.

unvote vote Pazzer

And why the vote, well I am not voting for Telika - I may, just may be convinced to vote for nmillar, but still not that likely a lynch. As such keeping the focus on flubbucket, I consider this lynch a way to at least get some understanding of flubbuckets alignment, assuming a lot of "if's". Given that there is for me only few choices at this moment that is viable; Pazzer(to confirm him and hopefully some about flubbucket), flubbucket (to confirm him), amok (LaL) - but out of those I find Pazzer the most reasonable.

Anyway I am rabbling, need sleep cya.

Also I am off to bed for a few hours, so hope it was either a wise choice I just made :P Or the day is still on when I wake.

I am on the side of the fence that believes pazzer's claim, yes.

Deliberately mis-quoting people doesn't help anyone.

Seriously do I, there. Care to explain how ?

It will give us no "understanding of flubbuckets alignment".
If he is truthful than flub is more likely than not town (but not guaranteed) and if he is lying scum than flub is town. What understandign will we gain from it?
Your lynch for informations has bad reasoning once again.

Please point to the post where I stated that there was a 121,803,025% chance of jailing the killer?

I suppose there is no such post but you really made it sound like tehre is no other explanation when you claimed.

To what probability of "blocking the killer" do your brilliant totally sincere and rational calculations oppose your totally mathematically valid 1/154 probability of "protecting the victim", for an action that does both ?

Oh you meant implicitely that the probabilities were the same but just thought you'd just mention one of them because, else, it's "fence-sitting" ?

Careful, you're verging on a personal attack here, rather than just playing the game.

Anyway, in answer to your question, the probability of 1 person targeting a single person (i.e. blocking the killer) is 1 in 13.

The probability of 2 people targeting the same person (i.e. protecting the victim) is 1 in 14 (I can protect myself) * 1 in 11 (scum won't target their buddies), which comes to 1 in 154.

A few people have stated that my calculations are flawed, but I still believe they are correct, hence the probability of blocking the killer rather than protecting the victim is much more likely.

Yeah so that's basically what I was saying. Nonsensical calculations biased to oppose two equivalent probabilities by artificially reducing one and implying its opposition to an implicitely higher other. I don't further argue mathematically (I did already point out the flaw in previous posts) because I think that there is intention at stake more than actual understanding. If your history of accusations so far in this game had looked honest, I could have assumed that patient maths explanations would have been useful... Here, I just feel trolled.

So what you're basically saying is the chance of 1 person selecting a particular person is exactly the same as 2 people selecting the same person?