Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ashersky]

This was my 10th scum win, btw.

[Witherweaver]

This was my 10th scum win, btw.

Statistically, we should just autolynch you.

[yuma]

I had trouble separating the case on Awaclus from Awaclus' meta

There were elements that were hard to separate, but I think the crux of my case was that he responded twice in scummy ways at the beginning of the day to separate himself from the lynch wagon. That doesn't have anything to do with meta. That is just scummy. The way he responded got clouded in meta. I feel like people focused to much on the surroundings of the case and neglected to focus on the actual case itself

[yuma]

Also I didn't like the way it was presented at all. It made me all angry and wanting to defend Awaclus.

I don't know how to respond to this...

[Awaclus]

There were elements that were hard to separate, but I think the crux of my case was that he responded twice in scummy ways at the beginning of the day to separate himself from the lynch wagon. That doesn't have anything to do with meta. That is just scummy. The way he responded got clouded in meta. I feel like people focused to much on the surroundings of the case and neglected to focus on the actual case itself

I don't think that was scummy though. I would probably have done the same as town.

[yuma]

There were elements that were hard to separate, but I think the crux of my case was that he responded twice in scummy ways at the beginning of the day to separate himself from the lynch wagon. That doesn't have anything to do with meta. That is just scummy. The way he responded got clouded in meta. I feel like people focused to much on the surroundings of the case and neglected to focus on the actual case itself

I don't think that was scummy though. I would probably have done the same as town.

I can't believe that and think you are just saying that to help yourself out during your next scum game, which is annoying and self serving.

[Witherweaver]

Consciously acting as scum the way you think you act is town is exactly what should be looked for when scum hunting.

[Awaclus]

Consciously acting as scum the way you think you act is town is exactly what should be looked for when scum hunting.

But I consciously act as town the way I think I act as town, so that's not really what should be looked for when scum hunting.

[Awaclus]

I can't believe that and think you are just saying that to help yourself out during your next scum game, which is annoying and self serving.

I'm saying it because it's true. Why wouldn't I do that as town?

[yuma]

I can't believe that and think you are just saying that to help yourself out during your next scum game, which is annoying and self serving.

I'm saying it because it's true. Why wouldn't I do that as town?

Why wouldn't you as town try to distance yourself from a mislynch that you purposefully were a part of that tried and succeeded to get said town member mislynched so that your non-existent scum buddies and yourself wouldn't get lunched instead?

If this is how you play town you aren't just annoying you are severely confused.

[yuma]

and if we can just declare things that we will always do as town townie then I declare...

"I will always try and kill awaclus in all future games that I am town"

and I completely and fully intend to stick to this self-imposed meta because I believe that it will be beneficial to the town that I am a part of

which is a nice cover if I am ever mafia in the future

[Awaclus]

Why wouldn't you as town try to distance yourself from a mislynch that you purposefully were a part of that tried and succeeded to get said town member mislynched so that your non-existent scum buddies and yourself wouldn't get lunched instead?

If this is how you play town you aren't just annoying you are severely confused.

So I should just try to get lynched whenever I'm town? Thanks for the advice, I probably wouldn't have reached that conclusion on my own.

[Witherweaver]

Man I hope I get quoted again.

[yuma]

cause that is exactly what I said...

but whatever. you want to win this argument. fine you win. what is the point.

having a conversation with you is like...

and oh fuck it why do I even bother talking this is just going to get a pointless response to lead to more pointlessness.

so from now on I am just going to vote you when you are around and otherwise not respond to your posts.

Sounds fun doesn't it? But there I go getting personal again in a game that isn't supposed to be taken personally but what can you do?

[yuma]

Man I hope I get quoted again.

HA!

using this quote from now on instead...

[silverspawn]

The thread title bothers me. Why keep the result hidden? Everyone who followed the game knows that it ending now can only mean that scum won, and everyone who did not follow doesn't care.

oh, just for the players to have the chance to look into the thread for the result. I don't like getting spoiled by the title, I prefer reading the flip in the thread.

It wasn't meant to stay like this and I can change it back right now, I just wanted to have it for one or two days. I did it in my two previous games too, I think.

[silverspawn]

It's hard for me to not think town's complaints about our play is anything more than sour grapes.  The fact of the matter is, we made a risky play, you bought it enough to allow us to win the game easily and flawlessly.

The result with a sample size of 1 is a bad argument. I can only repeat this fact because I think overvaluing the outcome of something is a very common type of cognitive bias that you and many many others suffer from.

Let's say your plan has a 33% chance to work. That would make it a really bad plan. But the chance of failure is still only twice as high as the chance of success. And now it just happened to work out - this is not unlikely, 1/3 chances happen all the time. But that doesn't make your plan any better or worse or does anything to it whatsoever. The plan is the plan and the outcome happens afterwards. How good the initial plan was is determined after the initial plan was made and independent of whether or not it works.

An example in this specific game: Awaclus could have been lynched day 2. In fact, he was super close to being lynched. All it would have taken is for something to come up in the real life of one or two players that changed who of them was there at certain times and who wasn't. Or for WW to be a tiny bit less frustrated with Awaclus, enough to push his lynch more instead of self-voting.

Or SP could just have been in the game. In that case, you lose either way. Are you trying to tell me you would not have pushed the mason claim if SP had been playing?

If any of the above happened, you would not defend the claim as much as you did. You would not insist that it was good play if it had lead to scum losing. I have proof of this right here:

The more we think about this, the worse of an idea it was! But it was fun!

I realized that, if we were much less powerful (like 2 or less Ts), this would have been way better, since we wouldn't be caught just by the virtue of the powers.

You already realized that it wasn't good, but then you changed your mind because of the outcome. Which is irrational. You could try to convince me that it was good play, but the above quote proves that you only even think so because of something that had zero effect on the outcome.

And that is illogical.

You (and others) can't break down mafia into a science.  There is feel, intuition, and magic.  If it was solvable by math and logic, it wouldn't need humans to play.

mafia is intuition, experience, and many other things, including maths. The importance of maths varies from game to game, most of the time it isn't a big deal.

In this particular case it was essential, as it would have won town the game. You cannot claim otherwise, because SP did find out that both masons were lying early into day 4 without any additional information beyond the thread.

[silverspawn]

Flawless win is a defined term.

I know that.

Writing 'ostensibly flawlessly' instead of something else was me acknowledging this fact while also putting my own personal note in there, in a post that doesn't really mean anything. That was indeed me being sour. Mafia wins flawlessly is still in the title and in the game history and was always intended to be there and I don't think being emotional is a bad thing.

[Awaclus]

cause that is exactly what I said...

Well, if you didn't say that town shouldn't try to avoid getting lynched, then you agree with me.

[faust]

If this is how you play town you aren't just annoying you are severely confused.

I know it is post-game, but I would appreciate if we could still keep discussions civil.

[faust]

In this particular case it was essential, as it would have won town the game. You cannot claim otherwise, because SP did find out that both masons were lying early into day 4 without any additional information beyond the thread.

I believe you heavily overestimate the power of scott's argument.

ash's early D1 behaviour should have tipped people off more though. Why propose a plan for the Masons to claim if you are a Mason yourself? That just didn't make sense for town and a lot of sense for mafia.

[Awaclus]

It's hard for me to not think town's complaints about our play is anything more than sour grapes.  The fact of the matter is, we made a risky play, you bought it enough to allow us to win the game easily and flawlessly.

The result with a sample size of 1 is a bad argument. I can only repeat this fact because I think overvaluing the outcome of something is a very common type of cognitive bias that you and many many others suffer from.

Let's say your plan has a 33% chance to work. That would make it a really bad plan. But the chance of failure is still only twice as high as the chance of success. And now it just happened to work out - this is not unlikely, 1/3 chances happen all the time. But that doesn't make your plan any better or worse or does anything to it whatsoever. The plan is the plan and the outcome happens afterwards. How good the initial plan was is determined after the initial plan was made and independent of whether or not it works.

An example in this specific game: Awaclus could have been lynched day 2. In fact, he was super close to being lynched. All it would have taken is for something to come up in the real life of one or two players that changed who of them was there at certain times and who wasn't. Or for WW to be a tiny bit less frustrated with Awaclus, enough to push his lynch more instead of self-voting.

Or SP could just have been in the game. In that case, you lose either way. Are you trying to tell me you would not have pushed the mason claim if SP had been playing?

If any of the above happened, you would not defend the claim as much as you did. You would not insist that it was good play if it had lead to scum losing. I have proof of this right here:

The more we think about this, the worse of an idea it was! But it was fun!

I realized that, if we were much less powerful (like 2 or less Ts), this would have been way better, since we wouldn't be caught just by the virtue of the powers.

You already realized that it wasn't good, but then you changed your mind because of the outcome. Which is irrational. You could try to convince me that it was good play, but the above quote proves that you only even think so because of something that had zero effect on the outcome.

And that is illogical.

You (and others) can't break down mafia into a science.  There is feel, intuition, and magic.  If it was solvable by math and logic, it wouldn't need humans to play.

mafia is intuition, experience, and many other things, including maths. The importance of maths varies from game to game, most of the time it isn't a big deal.

In this particular case it was essential, as it would have won town the game. You cannot claim otherwise, because SP did find out that both masons were lying early into day 4 without any additional information beyond the thread.

I'm not sure why you're even having this argument. Yes, the plan was not the best plan ever, but going for the plan was just one mistake. We made up for it by not making a lot of other mistakes, and I think we deserve some credit for that.

[silverspawn]

I'm not sure why you're even having this argument. Yes, the plan was not the best plan ever, but going for the plan was just one mistake. We made up for it by not making a lot of other mistakes, and I think we deserve some credit for that.

I'm making the argument because ash called me out for my modding decisions and then he called me out for questioning his scum play. I'm being defensive.

[silverspawn]

also my type indicator says I really want people around me to make sense. ash isn't making sense.

[scott_pilgrim]

It's hard for me to not think town's complaints about our play is anything more than sour grapes.  The fact of the matter is, we made a risky play, you bought it enough to allow us to win the game easily and flawlessly.

The result with a sample size of 1 is a bad argument. I can only repeat this fact because I think overvaluing the outcome of something is a very common type of cognitive bias that you and many many others suffer from.

Let's say your plan has a 33% chance to work. That would make it a really bad plan. But the chance of failure is still only twice as high as the chance of success. And now it just happened to work out - this is not unlikely, 1/3 chances happen all the time. But that doesn't make your plan any better or worse or does anything to it whatsoever. The plan is the plan and the outcome happens afterwards. How good the initial plan was is determined after the initial plan was made and independent of whether or not it works.

An example in this specific game: Awaclus could have been lynched day 2. In fact, he was super close to being lynched. All it would have taken is for something to come up in the real life of one or two players that changed who of them was there at certain times and who wasn't. Or for WW to be a tiny bit less frustrated with Awaclus, enough to push his lynch more instead of self-voting.

Or SP could just have been in the game. In that case, you lose either way. Are you trying to tell me you would not have pushed the mason claim if SP had been playing?

If any of the above happened, you would not defend the claim as much as you did. You would not insist that it was good play if it had lead to scum losing. I have proof of this right here:

The more we think about this, the worse of an idea it was! But it was fun!

I realized that, if we were much less powerful (like 2 or less Ts), this would have been way better, since we wouldn't be caught just by the virtue of the powers.

You already realized that it wasn't good, but then you changed your mind because of the outcome. Which is irrational. You could try to convince me that it was good play, but the above quote proves that you only even think so because of something that had zero effect on the outcome.

And that is illogical.

You (and others) can't break down mafia into a science.  There is feel, intuition, and magic.  If it was solvable by math and logic, it wouldn't need humans to play.

mafia is intuition, experience, and many other things, including maths. The importance of maths varies from game to game, most of the time it isn't a big deal.

In this particular case it was essential, as it would have won town the game. You cannot claim otherwise, because SP did find out that both masons were lying early into day 4 without any additional information beyond the thread.

Yeah, I agree with pretty much all of this.  Scum did some things well, but I think the claim was a huge mistake that happened to work out because of reasons they couldn't possibly have foreseen.