Should posting other players' winrates in game be allowed: an unbiased bot opinion

[Abraxas]

Here are chatGPT's thoughts on the matter:

[Art3mis]

Here are chatGPT's thoughts on the matter:

until this moment I had never thought of using someones win/loss ratio to discredit them. I know what I'm doing the next time I play.

#StayToxic

for legal purposes this is a joke

[Sett]

skill issue tbh

(joking of course)

[Twice Shrunk]

chatgtp is just insecure about its own winrate

[Arete]

imo this should clearly be handled on a case-by-case basis -- I do think that many instances of people bringing up other players' winrates are toxic, but I don't necessarily think it's inherently toxic?

Marl: I am the greatest mafia player ever. Everyone should sheep all of my reads, because I am the best villager on the site. Anyone who doesn't sheep me is bad or a wolf.

Chloe: your town winrate is literally 25%, dude. I think I'll take my chances.

Windward: I think katze is a wolf

katze: wtf, no one with a 35% winrate has any right to say something like that about me. why don't you go back to ToS where you belong, because you definitely don't belong here.

Given that toxicity is already punishable, I'm not convinced that additional rules changes are necessary

Also, this is extremely not the main point, but a couple thoughts on ChatGPT's arguments:

1. You didn't include what prompt you used, only the response. It is pretty easy to manipulate it into giving it a one-sided response by telling it what side to take.
2. Many of its arguments ... are bad. "It is important to focus on the current games and not bring in past games" -- this is a fully general argument against meta, which is legal.
3. it's literally a chatbot, I'm not going to pretend it's not a fun toy but it's also not a magic truth oracle

[Mistyx]

katze: wtf, no one with a 35% winrate has any right to say something like that about me. why don't you go back to ToS where you belong, because you definitely don't belong here.

wow arete community bashing

[Arete]

katze: wtf, no one with a 35% winrate has any right to say something like that about me. why don't you go back to ToS where you belong, because you definitely don't belong here.

wow arete community bashing

it's actually galaxy-brained bashing of people who think that being from ToS/etc. means you're bad at the game

[Art3mis]

Arete confirmed chatbot

[Abraxas]

2. Many of its arguments ... are bad. "It is important to focus on the current games and not bring in past games" -- this is a fully general argument against meta, which is legal.
3. it's literally a chatbot, I'm not going to pretend it's not a fun toy but it's also not a magic truth oracle

2. There is already a precedent to not allow posting of actual meta data from the website here: https://www.mafiauniverse.com/forums...ayer-analysis/

Voting accuracy is one measurement of skill, but you're not allowed to reference anything in the above tool. Why should winrate be treated differently? I can't see a positive of posting someone's winrate in thread.

3. It's a chatbot with a 10 billion dollar investment from microsoft and overall 30 billion dollar valuation. Hardly a toy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/202...h=1f833564154a

[Hyena]

Windward: I think katze is a wolf

katze: wtf, no one with a 35% winrate has any right to say something like that about me. why don't you go back to ToS where you belong, because you definitely don't belong here.

lol, I was half-seriously expecting to see a ToSer being the one who was toxic in the example considering the number of times I've seen this, and similar things, happen in our older games, but this ten times as funny -- more so because it's katze. XD

[katze]

Windward: I think katze is a wolf

katze: wtf, no one with a 35% winrate has any right to say something like that about me. why don't you go back to ToS where you belong, because you definitely don't belong here.

lol, I was half-seriously expecting to see a ToSer being the one who was toxic in the example considering the number of times I've seen this, and similar things, happen in our older games, but this ten times as funny -- more so because it's katze. XD

yea but you have a 0% 3p winrate so i dont think u have room to laugh

[iaafr]

I for one agree with the fundamental premise of this thread that Chelsea is toxic

[Alison]

I think the general concept of using past success/failure as a predictor for future past success/failure isn't inherently wrong - think of how many times you've seen people say something like, "I've always read this person correctly, sheep my read". This isn't that far off from saying you should sheep them because they have an 80% winrate over 30 games, and similarly, "you always tunnel X for bad reasons" isn't that far off from saying you should not listen to the reads of someone with a 25% winrate, on a theoretical level.

The problem with winrate calculations is that they are very dependent on how the games themselves are run. For instance, some old Syndicate players have winrates of 20% despite playing decently because they used to play in horribly designed games where anyone who died automatically loses the game even if their faction wins. Similarly, if you play in a very insular community where town wins every time because everyone has god meta on each other, then you will have an 80% winrate because you will be town 80% of the time.

My concern with winrate-invoking isn't that it's toxic, it's that it's inaccurate, and likely to be determined by a variety of different factors, of which skill is only one.

[Arete]

I think the general concept of using past success/failure as a predictor for future past success/failure isn't inherently wrong - think of how many times you've seen people say something like, "I've always read this person correctly, sheep my read". This isn't that far off from saying you should sheep them because they have an 80% winrate over 30 games, and similarly, "you always tunnel X for bad reasons" isn't that far off from saying you should not listen to the reads of someone with a 25% winrate, on a theoretical level.

The problem with winrate calculations is that they are very dependent on how the games themselves are run. For instance, some old Syndicate players have winrates of 20% despite playing decently because they used to play in horribly designed games where anyone who died automatically loses the game even if their faction wins. Similarly, if you play in a very insular community where town wins every time because everyone has god meta on each other, then you will have an 80% winrate because you will be town 80% of the time.

My concern with winrate-invoking isn't that it's toxic, it's that it's inaccurate, and likely to be determined by a variety of different factors, of which skill is only one.

I think this is a decent argument for it being a bad idea to reason from other players' winrates, but a bad argument for posting other players' winrates being against the rules -- there's no rule against making bad arguments

[lute]

every time I lost was on purpose to avoid people using winrate to read me

[Alison]

I think the general concept of using past success/failure as a predictor for future past success/failure isn't inherently wrong - think of how many times you've seen people say something like, "I've always read this person correctly, sheep my read". This isn't that far off from saying you should sheep them because they have an 80% winrate over 30 games, and similarly, "you always tunnel X for bad reasons" isn't that far off from saying you should not listen to the reads of someone with a 25% winrate, on a theoretical level.

The problem with winrate calculations is that they are very dependent on how the games themselves are run. For instance, some old Syndicate players have winrates of 20% despite playing decently because they used to play in horribly designed games where anyone who died automatically loses the game even if their faction wins. Similarly, if you play in a very insular community where town wins every time because everyone has god meta on each other, then you will have an 80% winrate because you will be town 80% of the time.

My concern with winrate-invoking isn't that it's toxic, it's that it's inaccurate, and likely to be determined by a variety of different factors, of which skill is only one.

I think this is a decent argument for it being a bad idea to reason from other players' winrates, but a bad argument for posting other players' winrates being against the rules -- there's no rule against making bad arguments

Yeah I think it should be allowed under the rules but also I want everyone to know that it's a bad argument and nobody should ever listen to it.

[Twice Shrunk]

tfw you realize this isn't a joke

[moth]

A team with moth is a fun team. And it usually wins. like 40% of the time

[Variance]

i only respect 0% winrate players

[SheepButBad]

Here are chatGPT's thoughts on the matter:

"unbiased bot opinion"

anyhow my thoughts on the matter are mostly just that winrate isn't indicative of a player's skill level most of the time & shouldn't be used or seen as an actual point.

In the specific example I think it's less that you were being discussed as much as your play.

I also think that players should be able to take the player who is pushing somebody into account when considering a read.

Just invoking a winrate is not toxic within itself tbh so that should be that?

[matt]

This is such a good troll thread lmao

[EvilContract]

Meta is meta as far as I'm concerned. People don't get to pick and choose what is okay and not okay to "bring up". If looking into someone's winrate gives you an insight into their current play, then I say go for it.