In post 17, Mas y Menos wrote:Guys, since we auto win if we lynch Mafia on Day 3
I suggest we just skip both Day 1 and Day 2.
We can still scumhunt until then, but I don't want to lynch anyone till day 3. Especially not strongest scumread till then.
Because we don't need to lynch both scum, just on the right day.
Thoughts?
~menos
Okay, this is the big pitch. Does it feel like he knows this is a bad idea?
He begins the suggestion with cordial "guys". This sounds pretty benign to me, like a child saying, "guys, check out this cool bug I found". On the other hand, his assertion "I don't want to lynch anyone till day 3" is stronger, more defiant; the idea hasn't been discussed yet, and he's already taking sides, picking a favorite team.
In post 20, Mas y Menos wrote:So what you think of delaying lynches to ensure a town win on day 3?
I doubt we will lynch 2 scum days 1 and 2. Statistically thats not likely.
Also would be harder to lynch a scum on day 3 if there are only 1 of them.
And if we just do mislynches then there are less town to figure it out.
I think we should do it!
~Menos
That operative word in line one, "ensure", feels very contrived, as does his statement that he "doubts" we'll lynch scum, and "statistically that's not likely." Later Mas shows us how much he hates statistics, but right then he was using it to advance his idea.
In post 22, Mas y Menos wrote: In post 21, xyzzy wrote:and go into day 3 with basically no info besides who died nights 1 and 2 and which players agreed to no lynch? that seems like a wildly bad idea
That is enough info for me.
~Menos
"That is enough info for me"... Still sticking to his idea, despite the criticism, suggesting a strong opinion on the matter, suggesting Mas is scum knowing it's a less-than-ideal idea. It was only mild criticism, though.
In post 28, Mas y Menos wrote: In post 27, keyenpeydee wrote:
First of all, On that post, You said we should just skip D1 and D2 because we auto win when we lynched a Mafia D3. So how do we lynch scum if we don't have any evidences and info?
NL-ing on D1 and D2 is never a good choice. There's still a chance that if we lynched a mafia D1 or D2, We can use some things that he town read the most, Which have a possibility it's his scum buddy.
For me, you are the most scummy here and I don't get your point.
VOTE: Mas y Menos
My point was that mislynching on day 1 is likely cause we are at zero information vantage point.
We maybe lynch scum day 2 but then its hard to lynch them on day 3 because now theres only one.
~Menos
Ignoring the detail that if there's only one scum left, it shouldn't matter what day we lynch them on, we still win, Mas sounds sincere in this post. He's not belligerent or coercive, he doesn't play with words; this feels uncensored, straight-from-the-brain, no scum-to-town filter applied.
In post 30, Mas y Menos wrote:Like the chance of scum lynch on day 1 is objectively low.
A player on my homesite once did an analysis of lynches day 1, it hit scum in 5% of the total games.
And games where the town no lynched on day 1 they had an 20% higher chance of winning then if they did lynch day 1.
Sometimes day 1 lynch is just not optimal.
~Menos
It's true that a scum lynch isn't likely to happen, but D1 lynches aren't meant to accurately hit scum. They are supposed to start the game off with a nice bit of information. I, personally, feel that this should be obvious, but the culture of theirr home site may be different. If the culture there explicitly ignores this philosophy, then Mas was just repeating an obvious thing they learned to do. But if the site doesn't propagate that opinion, Mas may have just been intentionally missing the point.
Mas Y Menos, what site do you hail from? I want to research this claim independently, tell me where to find it.
Also, nobody mention the above request. I want to see if Mas is reading my wall posts.
"Yes we are" is a very firm, authoritative statement; gone is the wheedling and cajoling from earlier.
We're gonna lynch, we'll lynch the best scum, believe me, I know, I know so many, many good scum, and, believe me, we'll lynch them, my plan is, I mean, I have a plan, the pan is lynch the scum, very good scum, meaning, you know, in terms of, lynching them, we'll do that, just not right now, later, very much later.
(Unrelated but w/e)
In post 49, Mas y Menos wrote: In post 48, xyzzy wrote:the mathematical probability of certain events happening is literally half of the entire basis on which the balance of mafia games is based (the other half is that town is, on average, not that good). you're arguing that town should do something that is objectively not in their best interest when you have direct evidence for why that's the case right in front of you
Thats not direct evidence dipshit thats fucking theoritical math.
~Mas Y
Oh, shoot, out come the big guns. Even after everything people have said, Mas gets belligerent; they
really
want this idea pushed through, even though everyone has given many reasons why it's not a good idea. Sometimes everyone in the town can be objectively wrong at the same time, except for you, but that's never likely. I think the most significant part about this is that Mas stopped arguing over the quality of the policy itself, and went into profane ad hominem attacks. They couldn't offer a real reason as to why the plan should be adopted, but they still want it accepted; exactly what you would do if you want something even though you know you're wrong.
In post 53, Mas y Menos wrote: In post 52, Gamma Emerald wrote:No, in fact, we likely have an even better chance if we lynch, as we can get vote reactions. This guy's not getting it at all.
A vote reaction to a mislynch train usually leads to very little info.
Can you pinpoint games in which mislynches helped you solve the game by how people went on the wagons?
Cause I can show you were mislynch trains compound on each other because town misreads town and other town thinks that other one was being scum pushing that, far more often then the opposite.
~Mas Y
Very contemptuous stubbornness--"can
you
pinpoint a game in which mislynching made future scumhunting easier?"
In post 58, Mas y Menos wrote: In post 55, BlackStar wrote:I thought he was saying that you shouldn't rely solely on math to predict how people will act in the game. Which is kind of ironic because he's the one who brought up math in the first place
Its mostly hypocritical.
I am just trying to get support for my idea.
I don't believe my data shows how players actually play. I think people just eat up data easily.
~Mas Y
"I am just trying to get support for my idea".
Checkmate.
This was intentional; they weren't just floating an idea by, they were fully committed to advancing an agenda. At the beginning, Mas pretended to be just presenting a peculiar idea he had that might be helpful--remember how them saying they "suggest" we skip lynching D1 & 2. Now his tone has completely changed,
without actually seeming to have made better case for the idea now than earlier.
If the evidence presented was the same back then as it is now, then how did MAs change his mind so dramatically, even as people resisted the idea? Why did Mas pretend to be merely raising an interesting possibility, when they knew darn well what they really wanted was "support for my idea"?
Mas gives up after this; no posts beyond this and before mine seriously fight for his idea. He backed off pretty quickly, don't you think, for calling one of his main opponents a "dipshit". All in all, way more bits of evidence suggesting he was scum who knew this was a bad idea and therefore really wanted it, than just a town with an idea they wanted to discuss.
I want to make sure rb read this post in its entirety, so tell me: do ctrl+f and tell me if I ever used the word "presume". If I did, use the word "presume" in your next post, please.
