Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26006155-20200107155350/@comment-32182236-20200205181822

Weirdly enough? The place I suggested we debate, was the #FNAF channel on the Game Theorist Discord.

Wow.

Then you did everything right, and they were completely in the wrong. The case of the character limit doesn't apply to the Game Theorists' Discord, so that reason doesn't hold water.

-

Let's see... on the Undertale Wiki, we have had 170 blocks tagged "abusing multiple accounts" or "sockpuppet". The number of users, not counting IPs, is... 15,371.

But we're crossing over into the FNAF Wiki as well, because Ferret isn't accusing me of sockpuppeting a user of the Undertale Wiki, but that of the FNAF Wiki. I'd be a cross-wiki sockpuppeter.

So look at the FNAF Wiki as well. This is especially important considering that all three of the supposed alts appear to be FNAF analysts, two on Fandom, and one on Discord, with me as an Undertale analyst.

So our prior probability is 170/15371. 1.1%.

That'd be the probability that I have an alt, not the probability that I have an alt which happens to be Merc.

In that case, we'd have to multiply THAT by 1/15370.. (It's not 15371, because I'm one of those users) And, of course, multiply that by the average number of alts that sockpuppets use.

Of course, that number is incorrect, considering the fact that FNAF Wiki is involved as well.

Let's get that evidence.

Once we find out the real prior probability.

--

It's probably best if we focus on the debate going forward.

Neat. I had also proposed the idea. We can save this for later, perhaps after discussion of this has subsided. (Or once I reach an iteration of the simulation, that either doesn't crash, or doesn't have any bugs or assumptions unnecessary to your hypothesis that might have caused the crash. You should probably search for bugs, though. Confirmation bias means you're probably more likely to find them than me. Jacky's great at this too, though, pointing out flaws in both of our reasonings at times.)

We just need to remember that the discussion happened on Round 8, and we'll find it later on when we need to search for it.

Of course, by then, Discussions likely will have happened. So it's probably better to archive it and put it somewhere else, either now, or after we get to it, so we don't have to go through the multiple clicks every time we want to look at what we discussed.

Be sure not to miss a post on the discussion, though. It begins with when you asked how I felt about your third strike (post 102), and ends... now.(Post 176 if I didn't get ninja'd.)