You are viewing the MafiaScum.net Wiki. To play the game, visit the forum.
7for7: Difference between revisions
m (reverted edits by 74.121.148.3 (talk|contribs); changed back to last version by Fenhl) |
(+links) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Relation to the Gambler's Fallacy== | ==Relation to the Gambler's Fallacy== | ||
7for7 is similar to the Gambler's Fallacy in regards to the false belief that the probability of an event in a random sequence is dependent on preceding events, but different in expectation. The Gambler's Fallacy implies that if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up many times in a row, heads is more likely on the following toss. 7for7 implies that if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up many times in a row, tails is more likely on the following toss. | 7for7 is similar to the [[Gambler's Fallacy]] in regards to the false belief that the probability of an event in a random sequence is dependent on preceding events, but different in expectation. The Gambler's Fallacy implies that if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up many times in a row, heads is more likely on the following toss. 7for7 implies that if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up many times in a row, tails is more likely on the following toss. | ||
==Controversy== | ==Controversy== | ||
Some argue that Albert B. Rampage's play was not a new logical fallacy, but a currently existing one. Some argue that it is <i>Ad Nauseum</i>, as stated by Yosarian2, "I can at least take solace in the fact that if Albert is pro-town, that after this game I won't have to ever again hear him bragging about his "perfect scum-catching record". | Some argue that Albert B. Rampage's play was not a new logical fallacy, but a currently existing one. Some argue that it is <i>Ad Nauseum</i>, as stated by Yosarian2, "I can at least take solace in the fact that if Albert is pro-town, that after this game I won't have to ever again hear him bragging about his "perfect scum-catching record". | ||
Others state that it is <i>Argumentum in Terrorem</i>, commonly known as Appeal to Fear, as Joudas imitated Albert B. Rampage, "That's because we're right! YAAAHHGH! Listen to us, seriously, or you'll regret it later!!!1</Albert>". | Others state that it is <i>Argumentum in Terrorem</i>, commonly known as [[Appeal to Fear]], as Joudas imitated Albert B. Rampage, "That's because we're right! YAAAHHGH! Listen to us, seriously, or you'll regret it later!!!1</Albert>". | ||
Others state that it was an instance of a <i>False Dilemma</i> when he warned Player X that the choices of lynch for the day were between him and Player Y, excluding other possible candidates. | Others state that it was an instance of a <i>[[False Dilemma]]</i> when he warned Player X that the choices of lynch for the day were between him and Player Y, excluding other possible candidates. | ||
Even more accusations include that it was an instance of <i>Argument from Small Numbers</i>, given that 7 successes is not enough to make success a common occurrence for Albert. | Even more accusations include that it was an instance of <i>Argument from Small Numbers</i>, given that 7 successes is not enough to make success a common occurrence for Albert. | ||
Revision as of 15:57, 2 October 2020
Summary of 7for7
7for7 is a term used to describe a logical fallacy used by Albert B. Rampage in Mini 578, in which he stated that, since he had so much success at getting scum lynched in previous games, he was talented at finding scum and that everybody should follow his lead. The expression first came from Pyrodwarf who stated, "you are trying to kill him to maintain your "7for7" and was subsequently turned into an expression for logical fallacy by Mikeburnfire.
About 7for7
When Albert B. Rampage replaced into Mini 578, he humbly stated that he was the worst possible candidate for building a case, but added that he was about 5 for 5 in lynching scum. He grew more confident in his luck when he lynched scum in other games, stating that he was now 7 for 7 in the scum he'd caught. "I am trying very hard to not get big-headed, but its becoming harder and harder as I am proven right time and time again", he stated. In the mini, he assured everyone that he was 99.7% sure Player X was scum, and that he was scum with Player Y. When Yosarian2 expressed interest in lynching scum rather than "whatever name Albert picked out of a hat," Albert replied, "7 for 7 man. SKILL, man!!" However, upon lynching Player X, he turned up Vanilla Townie. Player Y would later be proven to be a Watcher Townie and was killed by the mafia.
Relation to the Gambler's Fallacy
7for7 is similar to the Gambler's Fallacy in regards to the false belief that the probability of an event in a random sequence is dependent on preceding events, but different in expectation. The Gambler's Fallacy implies that if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up many times in a row, heads is more likely on the following toss. 7for7 implies that if a fair coin is tossed repeatedly and tails comes up many times in a row, tails is more likely on the following toss.
Controversy
Some argue that Albert B. Rampage's play was not a new logical fallacy, but a currently existing one. Some argue that it is Ad Nauseum, as stated by Yosarian2, "I can at least take solace in the fact that if Albert is pro-town, that after this game I won't have to ever again hear him bragging about his "perfect scum-catching record".
Others state that it is Argumentum in Terrorem, commonly known as Appeal to Fear, as Joudas imitated Albert B. Rampage, "That's because we're right! YAAAHHGH! Listen to us, seriously, or you'll regret it later!!!1</Albert>".
Others state that it was an instance of a False Dilemma when he warned Player X that the choices of lynch for the day were between him and Player Y, excluding other possible candidates.
Even more accusations include that it was an instance of Argument from Small Numbers, given that 7 successes is not enough to make success a common occurrence for Albert.
8for8
If the fallacy of 7for7 is not recognized, it is likely to become the 8for8 fallacy, emboldening the user of said fallacy with a false sense of accomplishment and intuition that is undeserved. As stated by PyroDwarf, "of course you want to kill him. after he dies, you can just say: "see, now im 8for8, i cant be wrong!""