Open 59 - Daytalk 12! (Game Over) before 545

[JDodge]

Vote: JDodge

This is something that came to light behind the scenes:

JDodge had, initially not read his role PM. He told the mod this, and then the mod forced his role upon JDodge. This led to JDodge being angry and threw a massive fit in scumchat yesterday with regards to Oman's behaviour.

Now, the only reason I can see for not reading role PM is to not know you are scum. That is the biggest advantage of playing without knowing your role. Upon knowing his role, JDodge became angry. This points to the fact that JDodge is scum, because had JDodge been told that he was town, he would not have any reason to become angry.

Yeah because having my right to play the game the way I wish to taken away is just going to make me a bucket of sunshine

[JDodge]

JDodge, you were annoyed over it based on the fact that you would play better if your role was not revealed to you. I fail to see how you could play better as townie if you did not know you were a townie, but I can certainly see how you could play better as scum if you did not know you were scum.

You also fail at noticing theoretical situations; at that point, it was more of an "if I were scum" thing. I also object to you using something that was said pre-game before I was even really supposed to be saying anything, especially what was essentially a policy argument.

[JDodge]

Vote: JDodge

This is something that came to light behind the scenes:

JDodge had, initially not read his role PM. He told the mod this, and then the mod forced his role upon JDodge. This led to JDodge being angry and threw a massive fit in scumchat yesterday with regards to Oman's behaviour.

Now, the only reason I can see for not reading role PM is to not know you are scum. That is the biggest advantage of playing without knowing your role. Upon knowing his role, JDodge became angry. This points to the fact that JDodge is scum, because had JDodge been told that he was town, he would not have any reason to become angry.

Yeah because having my right to play the game the way I wish to taken away is just going to make me a bucket of sunshine

In what way were you playing the game though? If you're not reading your role pm, you're not playing the game, you're just posting whilst other people are playing it around you.

Can we please avoid this argument? I had it at least 5 times yesterday

[JDodge]

I only wanted to do it in this setup in the first place because of the day communication, so I'd say "yes"

[JDodge]

Vote: JDodge

This is something that came to light behind the scenes:

JDodge had, initially not read his role PM. He told the mod this, and then the mod forced his role upon JDodge. This led to JDodge being angry and threw a massive fit in scumchat yesterday with regards to Oman's behaviour.

Now, the only reason I can see for not reading role PM is to not know you are scum. That is the biggest advantage of playing without knowing your role. Upon knowing his role, JDodge became angry. This points to the fact that JDodge is scum, because had JDodge been told that he was town, he would not have any reason to become angry.

Yeah because having my right to play the game the way I wish to taken away is just going to make me a bucket of sunshine

In what way were you playing the game though? If you're not reading your role pm, you're not playing the game, you're just posting whilst other people are playing it around you.

Can we please avoid this argument? I had it at least 5 times yesterday

People who want to play without reading their role pm can eat my...

vote jdodge

[

policy lynches are for people not good enough to find scum themselves, so they lynch people for idiotic reasons and hope that they manage to be right one of those times

[JDodge]

And I voted you based on Primate's supposition that you got mad cuz you were told you were scum. You made yer mud bed, now soak in it.

Aaaand Primate is saying I would've been mad either way, which is a correct assessment. Sir T is the one pulling the bullshit case out of thin air.

Vote: cicero

this is where you claim that my vote OMGUS, so i'll preempt you there by saying "I have a reason. You're following a case and you don't even know who posted it."

See? That saved us both time and energy.

[JDodge]

I meant Sir T, not Primate. Thanks for the clarification.

Your vote on me feels all warm and cuddly. I feel loved. Your idea is that only scum
would make such a mistake then? Interesting theory. And incorrect!

Nope, my idea is that you're not paying close enough attention. Fix that.

[JDodge]

Oh and add to my knowledge the fact that you do support policy lynches.

You had told me once in a private convo - and also in scumchat I think, much before we even signed up for the game that you "have a list of people who should never be allowed to live till the end game". I know that the list includes at least Battle Mage. That is called policy lynching. How come you have come out to condemn policy lynching now?

And you assume I was entirely serious why?

I suppose this is like inadmissible evidence in a court of law. But, a court of law has more emphasis for fair trial. I on the other hand care more about catching scum using whatever knowledge I have.

In other words, you'll take any opportunity you can to make stuff up to get me lynched.

[JDodge]

Rofl. That's a lot of stuff on page 1 already.

Vote: Phate

It was my fate to randomly vote against him.

Also with regard to everything that happened on Page 1, according to Oman's Rule 07, this really shouldn't be discussed in scumchat, so you guys may want to watch out for a modkill ya know.

Why do you want people modkilled?

[JDodge]

Rofl. That's a lot of stuff on page 1 already.

Vote: Phate

It was my fate to randomly vote against him.

Also with regard to everything that happened on Page 1, according to Oman's Rule 07, this really shouldn't be discussed in scumchat, so you guys may want to watch out for a modkill ya know.

Why do you want people modkilled?

Yes, why? This struck me as quite odd.

How is saying "you may want to watch out for a modkill" the same as saying, "I want people to be modkilled"?

Why do you think people who break that rule will be modkilled and not replaced or some other such thing?

Also, xyzzy is scum. He thinks that people without AIM are scum for "limiting communication".

Unvote, vote: xyzzy

[JDodge]

hahahahahahahaha

JDodge, the whole point of private communication is that you can see things people don't normally show - if I'm asking you questions in a chat and you're taking 5 minutes to answer, I won't trust your answer. To come into a game where those tools are allowed and refuse to let people use them is scummy. If someone wants the town to win this game, they will let the town do whatever necessary to achieve that win. It's just that simple. That applies to every game; if cops refused to investigate because "it isn't worth the effort", no one would believe them upon a claim, because that's just stupid play as town.

And for choosing to just say, "oh, lol, I don't have a good argument, bye" and leaving, you win a fantastic

unvote, vote: jdodge

!

I chose to end the conversation because I don't see what the point of talking to scum is.

[JDodge]

Yeah, badly worded. It was decided that it was significiant, which I took to mean scummy, but it's possible to take it as "significant but null" or "significant but town".

JDodge, if I were scum, talking to me could only lead to one thing - a total slip-up. Why wouldn't you want that?

Scum is trying to trick town. Thus it also leads to you messing with my mind.

[JDodge]

Oh and add to my knowledge the fact that you do support policy lynches.

You had told me once in a private convo - and also in scumchat I think, much before we even signed up for the game that you "have a list of people who should never be allowed to live till the end game". I know that the list includes at least Battle Mage. That is called policy lynching. How come you have come out to condemn policy lynching now?

And you assume I was entirely serious why?

I suppose this is like inadmissible evidence in a court of law. But, a court of law has more emphasis for fair trial. I on the other hand care more about catching scum using whatever knowledge I have.

In other words, you'll take any opportunity you can to make stuff up to get me lynched.

1) Yes, you were quite serious during that discussion. Plus, you did not have any reason to lie at all.

2) Now, you are really twisting my words. I never said that, nor did anything I said remotely mean that.

I really can't see you as being anything other than scum now after reading that post.

is xyzzy more than scum now or something

[JDodge]

This is a bit complicated JDodge. I need to think over exactly what Xyzzy is trying to do here. I can't fathom his actions from Xyzzy-town POV (plus, my head is hurting right now).

At the same time, he seems determined to help me get you lynched and then remove his hand out of it completely. I can't see where that puts you.

But you have already arbitrarily for reasons that are best described as "complete and utter bullshit" decided that I am scum

Therefore if you work from that viewpoint you would have an easier time figuring out what you would want to about xyzzy

Therefore I must assume that either A.) you don't want to give anything away about xyzzy or B.) you were talking out your ass earlier

[JDodge]

A.) you don't want to give anything away about xyzzy

I can't understand where that comes from

B.) you were talking out your ass earlier

My earlier vote, I should admit was more or less based on a wild assumption, which was more over based on an idea I had much earlier, and I later decided to get it out as means to get reactions instead of a random vote. It did get a significant reaction, btw as I do not get why a town-JDodge would lie outright to me in his post 24.

What lie?

[JDodge]

This game strikes me as basically being kind of balanced in the favor of the mafia. Basically, I dont know how to use the daytalk function to my advantage as town and there are no power roles. As scum one would be able to talk to each other throughout the day and adjust play accordingly to trick people and stay hidden.

Am I missing something?

It's like being a mason who can talk during the day. Only you're masons with everyone.

[JDodge]

that is a bunch of crap.

unvote, vote:Thesp

and

FoS: Oman

for going along with it.

I understand your position, please understand mine, and also Thesp's - Mod

is it that much fairer to change the rules and dynamics of the game mid-stream?

[JDodge]

fair? I'm more worried about []interesting[/i], and playing in a game that isn't

stalled

.

Cicero was the only player I'd exchanged private communication with so far in this game, so not very much seems to be happening from what I can tell.



Having a player who is a cop would make he setup far more dnamic and interesting, and I assumed the scum players would go along with it for that reason-- it wouldn't shift the balance too much anyhow.

Were you the one that cried to Thesp?

Why do you assume that someone demanded that the setup not be changed (if that is what you're insinuating)? Would you change the setup of one of your games midway through? Would you tell someone you were running a certain setup and then run a different one instead under the guise of making it "interesting"?

To be entirely honest, I would

not

have signed up for this game if I had the knowledge of there being a cop and a GF as I utterly

despise

cops without the proper checks and balances - so while I did not complain about the proposed change, I would have been

incredibly

disgruntled about it.

[JDodge]

Adel, your attitude of "let's just lynch randomly to see what it gets us" is super-scummy. Why, specifically, is that a good idea? Because I can't see ANY reason to random lynch. My death wouldn't even provide the town any useful info.

Unvote, vote Adel

I think it'll get us useful info about the people pushing your wagon and the people trying to defuse it. Why do you think otherwise?

[JDodge]

Clearly it is!

Vote: Adel

she figured me out!

[JDodge]

vollkan: post some long drawn-out post about why X is scum. I'm trying to prove something.

[JDodge]

I said

people

not

players

! stoooooooooopider.

But the

people

in the

game

, who are the

people

you

specified

are

players

! stooooooooooopidest.

[JDodge]

vollkan: post some long drawn-out post about why X is scum. I'm trying to prove something.

There is nowhere nearly enough meaningful content on which to make one of my enormous posts. I thought that my opening note post would have shown that pretty clearly.

Then why are you not providing any actual content in the interim?

unvote, vote:Incognito
Does anyone want to help me bus my scumpartner Incognito? I want to see him hang today.

Scum claim.

Vote: Adel

Why is this scummy?

[JDodge]

EBWOP: And why didn't you hop on my earlier scum-claim?

[JDodge]

unvote, vote:Incognito
Does anyone want to help me bus my scumpartner Incognito? I want to see him hang today.

Scum claim.

Vote: Adel

Why is this scummy?

I don't know if scum-claiming is actually a scum-tell? I haven't seen any evidence for this.

The three most likely explanations are:
1) Adel is scum and has gotten sick of the game
2) Pro-town Adel is being a shit-stirrer
3) Scum Adel is being a shit-stirrer

If it is 1), my vote is the right place. If it is 2) or 3), then my hope is that my vote will play a part in causing the stirring of some shit and creating an argument.

You haven't seen any evidence of it

being

scummy, yet you... find it scummy. I see. (Here's a hint. It's almost guaranteed to be 2 or 3.)

EBWOP: And why didn't you hop on my earlier scum-claim?

Where did you claim scum?

Hypothetical Second Vote: JDodge

contingent upon JDodge providing evidence of said earlier scum-claim.

Clearly it is!

Vote: Adel

she figured me out!

But if you don't know why it's supposedly scummy, why would you go after more people for it?

Also,

unvote, vote: vollkan

[JDodge]

So that means we have Adel, of whatever alignment she may be, claiming scum most likely to "stir shit". Now, I have no objection to chaotic behaviour in principle, but most manifestations of it really rub me the wrong way.

Is this because she voted you? What inclines you to believe she is scum now?

I have not encountered any evidence, even anecdotal, that "trapping" behaviour, where one play does something explicitly not pro-town (ie. claiming scum, self-voting) in order to judge reactions is actually an effective means of scumhunting. I've laid traps of sorts in the past as town, but I've always done via questioning in argument rather than resorting to chaotic means (best example was Mini 486 with Oman).

Vengeful GF claim gambit.

Actually pretty much any small setup (7p or less) that is fully open can be broken by claiming scum. I'll have to explain the reasons behind it sometime; but not now.

My objection to chaotic means is two-fold:
1) Chaotic play can come from any alignment
2) Chaotic behaviour can elicit a wide spectrum of reactions from both alignments. No reaction is ostensibly "pro-town" or "pro-scum".

1) Technically any play can come from any alignment. Are you objected to all forms of play?
2) Unless you have meta information to back up how someone will react in such a situation.

What I mean is that town is just as likely to be caught by such a trap as scum. Some town might jump on it as being genuine (ie. an actual scumclaim), others might see it as a trap and vote anyway because it is anti-town, others might steer clear altogether. Similarly, some scum might jump on opportunistically, others might steer clear to avoid being called oppportunistic. Neither of these is a restrictive list, but they both show the potential for diversity. The point I am trying to make is that I am do not believe such behaviour is actually a reliable means of determining the alignment of other players.

Idiots; sometimes they're town, sometimes they're scum. Which is why traps are in general

ineffective

. Your entire argument is that traps are

ineffective

. How is playing ineffectively scummy?

Scum-claims are probably the best example of this. @Adel, JDodge and any future fleas: How should a townie react on seeing someone claim scum?

They should analyze all possible scenarios behind it posthaste, and figure out (based on a combination of meta and logistics of the situation) whether a player is more likely pro-town or scum. I'd actually wager that more townies claim scum than scum claim scum, but that's a different argument entirely.

I have no answer to that question, myself. As I said above, the variety of potential reactions is enormous. Thus, scum claims are something that I will not tolerate unless and until I receive some credible explanation as to their reliability.

How is something that you dislike from a playstyle standpoint in any way a scumtell?

So, why did I vote Adel?

By voting Adel, I have made myself the target of the fleas. Thus, I have defused the trap which was set by her chaotic play. Nobody else, town or scum, is going to be caught in it - because I have pulled the argument onto myself.

Essentially, you decided to step in and play hero so maybe people will look beyond what you're actually saying. Tell me; how is preventing reactions in any way a pro-town action?

[JDodge]

So that means we have Adel, of whatever alignment she may be, claiming scum most likely to "stir shit". Now, I have no objection to chaotic behaviour in principle, but most manifestations of it really rub me the wrong way.

Is this because she voted you?

Adel's vote for me has nothing to do with this. Indeed, I expected her to vote me.

I see. Go on. There's still something else there; what are you hiding?

What inclines you to believe she is scum now?

She laid a trap which I have submitted was going to be useless at best and destructive at worst. That sort of play merits pressure and argument, and my vote. I don't take scum claims lightly.

Again, how does uselessness = anti-town? You're incredibly good at dodging questions.

Vengeful GF claim gambit.

Never heard of it.

Townie claims GF day one. Reactions almost always find at least the goon, except in rare circumstances (as with any gambit) in which scum successfully manipulates it to their own gain.

Actually pretty much any small setup (7p or less) that is fully open can be broken by claiming scum. I'll have to explain the reasons behind it sometime; but not now.

I don't expect a massive theory discussion here. Do you mean broken in town's favour, or in scum's?

Depends on who's claiming scum.

My objection to chaotic means is two-fold:
1) Chaotic play can come from any alignment
2) Chaotic behaviour can elicit a wide spectrum of reactions from both alignments. No reaction is ostensibly "pro-town" or "pro-scum".

1) Technically any play can come from any alignment. Are you objected to all forms of play?
2) Unless you have meta information to back up how someone will react in such a situation.

I agree with you that any play can come from any alignment. I'll try and flesh out what I meant in more detail, connecting both points.

Let's imagine two scenarios:
A) Player X is scum, and claims scum
B) Player X is town, and claims scum

In both scenarios, player X can claim scum, elicit the same reactions and make the same attacks on people based on those reactions.

Let's imagine two scenarios"
A) Player C is scum, and does something
B) Player C is town, and does something

Both scenarios are the same. My logic holds.

Unless there is some reliable way of judging reactions to scum claims (and I am not aware of any) then tolerating scum claims effectively allows a means by which grounds for suspicion can be

easily

contrived.

It's something that involves reading deep enough into the situation where you can construct in your own mind a sort of "road map" of the exact psychological state of the person's mind at the time they made said claim, and extrapolate from that the exact thought process behind it. It's a skill that requires loads of careful observation of small-setup mechanics, but it's easier than it sounds.

Now, obviously any form of play can be utilised by scum, and I don't object to "all forms of play". What makes things like scum claims unique is the ease with which scum can exploit them - in contrast with, for example, having to stretch themselves to form credible arguments.

Actually, there are numerous plays that can be exploited by scum - furthermore, how is it different from any other fake-claim? There should be some questioning about the circumstances of it before blind hopping on wagons.

It's very easy for scum to claim scum and leap on those who react in wrong way (eg. by voting them for claiming scum). It's far more difficult for scum to build a case against people (I'm talking in a relative sense here).

It's easy for town to claim scum and correctly leap on those who react in the wrong way. Either way, I'm pretty sure you don't really believe what you're saying right now, so it's all good. It's far too easy for scum to build a case against people when you delve deep enough into the psychologies of mafia to learn exactly what sways people in what ways, and why it does so. I could easily build a convincing case against someone if given enough time and if I were to put enough effort into it.

Idiots; sometimes they're town, sometimes they're scum. Which is why traps are in general ineffective. Your entire argument is that traps are ineffective. How is playing ineffectively scummy?

Well, let's proceed with the idiot example. Pushing the lynch of an idiot is very likely going to be anti-town (since there are more town than scum) and, thus,

ineffective

. Unless I am missing something, that's the reason that there is objection against lynching newbies for what probably is the result of inexperience, or idiots for what is the result of idiocy. That sort of thing is seen as opportunistic and, ergo, scummy.

That is a specific example missing a broader spectrum of possibilities. Here's my favorite example to show why that argument is crap:

Someone is scumhunting logically. They (through a logical series of conclusions) decide that a townie is scum. They get said townie lynched. Is that anti-town because it was technically

ineffective

?

Now, laying a trap by claiming scum is also very likely going to be anti-town and, thus, ineffective UNLESS you have some reliable meta evidence supporting things one way or the other. As I have said, I've never encountered even anecdotal evidence that "Town are more likely to ___" or "Scum are more likely to ___" and, thus, laying such traps is really no better than pushing, with no good reason, for the lynch of an idiot.

If you have never encountered anything that says "Town are more likely to ___" or "Scum are more likely to ____", then how the hell do you even scumhunt? That is the entire basis of tells; ___ is more likely to do ____ than ____.

Essentially, you decided to step in and play hero so maybe people will look beyond what you're actually saying. Tell me; how is preventing reactions in any way a pro-town action?

By preventing reactions I have prevented the potential for those reactions to be exploited. I have already argued my view that said reactions are worthless in terms of information value. No information has been lost, but the potential for exploitation of reactions has been stifled.

Information

has

been lost. Reactions

are

information. We can easily point out where someone is exploiting a reaction; we can't turn back time and figure out how people would have reacted.

[JDodge]

Let me run over my thinking and actions for you:
Adel tries to set what is mot likely a trap, of a nature which I disagree with and believe is anti-town. I vote Adel in the knowledge that, since it is a trap, she will end up retaliating (along with anyone else of a similar mind). In doing so, I not only defuse the potential for the trap to get out of hand but I also get to spark a proper argument regarding my actions (which this thread is crying out for).

OK, thanks for answering that. Tells me your answers are rather legitimate since they don't change from your initial account.

I didn't dodge the question. As I said: Useless at best, destructive at worst.

There is no reliable scum reaction for such a trap, so it's useless as a means of catching scum (ie. it has NO advantage)

However, it is quite foreseeable that a townie would be caught in Adel's trap and come under undue suspicion for that. Obviously, the same goes for scum also, but without any reliable sort of indicator (and, again, I don't know of any) this is basically just relying on probability, which obviously favours the scum. Thus, the trap has an anti-town effect.

Again, there is no reliable scum reaction for

anything

. What makes this any different? Even if a townie comes under suspicion for the trap, don't you think that will still help us in the long run? Personally, I don't think you "ran in and defused the trap" like you said. I think you stumbled right into it and are now trying to cover that up.

Let's imagine two scenarios"
A) Player C is scum, and does something
B) Player C is town, and does something

Both scenarios are the same. My logic holds.

The point I made with my scenarios was directly leading into my discussion about ease of contrivance. A general "something" is distinct from the specific "claims scum".

But in the end, most everything in the game boils down to that; either someone who does something, be it claim scum or whatever, is either scum or town. Your point actually works

against

scumclaim as a scumtell; if both town and scum can do it, it's not really alignment-indicative is it?

You're missing my point.

I agree with you that all of the above about reading deep etc. is going to be the best way to judge scumminess (in respect to scum claims and many other things).

However, I reiterate that I don't believe that reactions to scum claims can be reliably assessed. Proof of this to me was the fact that, like clockwork, I attracted votes after voting Adel. The letters "Q.E.D." are dancing around in my head right now.

I just

told

you how to reliably assess them. When you can't win an argument, say "you're missing my point" and ignore the other person! What a brilliant debate tactic.

I am voting you because you hopped on Adel's wagon while even stating that you did not know how a scum claim is scummy

.

But besides that, I can reasonably conceive of a non-newb townie voting someone for claiming scum (whether it be for the reason I voted Adel, or just out of belief that the claim was genuine). I can also reasonably conceive of scum voting someone for claiming scum (out of opportunism).

I can reasonably conceive that most players who know what they're doing can read deep enough to see the intent of that person. Your intent seem dubious at best. I seem to be having trouble reading deeper though because I cannot conceive what would possibly be running through your mind right now.

This brings me to two questions, for JDodge and Adel each to answer:
1) Can you judge responses to scum claims at least as reliably as you can ordinary behaviour (the threshold for it being non-harmful)?
2) What's your assessment of my response to the scum claim?

1) As with all tells, how reliably you can judge someone with it largely varies from person-to-person, situation, etc.
2) You hopped on a wagon because "claiming scum is scummy" without any substantiating evidence anywhere.

That's why I said "things like scum claims" - I include things like fake-claims in that. To be more specific, I was referring to any form of play that is targeted generally (I've trapped specific players in the past), involves some form of deception (eg. a scum claim, calling for someone to be lynched just to see who goes along with it, etc), and which forms a grounds for suspicion in and of itself, rather than as a springboard (cf. wake-up wagoning).

Ugh, you're one of those lynch-all-liars fanatics aren't you.

There is

so much that can be found

through fake-claiming different

alignments

. Fake-claiming role is generally accepted as a horrible strategy, and it's what makes Albert B. Rampage a horrible player. The point is that in general, fake-claiming alignment is a good play in any fully open setup of 12p or less, and optimal play first-thing D1 in any fully open setup of 7p or less.

It's anti-town in effect, but the behaviour itself is not.

However, as I've been saying, I don't accept that claiming scum is ever a good means of catching scum. If X is most likely going to hurt the town with no hope of any advantage, then X is anti-town - even if X is committed with the best of intentions.

Well, if you're just going to say all my arguments are crap with the blanket statement "I don't accept this", then what is the point of discussion anyways?

So you have no problem lynching a townie if they're supposedly "anti-town"?

You don't think I'm serious about this?

I didn't say that building cases is impossible for scum to do; it just requires effort and is far more exposing. If scum put themselves out in the open with arguments that can be logically analysed, they are far more liable to fail than if they rely on trap tactics which prima facie don't need to be justified

because they're traps

(similar to voting based on smell/gut/feeling/faith/etc.)

Testing the waters.

If town puts themselves in the open with arguments that can be logically analyzed, they are also liable to fail. Anyone is liable to fail at arguing. Anyone is liable to fail at

anything

, which is what makes your argument so shaky. And really, if you think voting on gut/feeling is scummy, then there's a bit more of an issue there.

It might pay to consider the context of what I said. I was talking specifically in relation to dealing with scum claims and similar.

The way it is worded does not imply that. Even then, I have

told you

numerous times how it works; you have entirely ignored it and said "I don't accept this". What will you accept? How can I show you exactly what I mean when you just brush it off as nothing?

Second order information (information about reactions to reactions) and so on (third, fourth, etc) was lost as a result of my behaviour.

As I said, my intention was to prevent first order reactions being exploited by defusing an unreliable tool. The cost was no higher-order reactions. As a trade-off, however, I opened a new field of higher-order reactions around myself (we've seen yours and Adel's already) and some nice discussion.

The "first-order reactions" are the

most important things of all in this game

. The cost is potential info on Adel being lost, and turning the thread into a two-sided argument between you and I. This is not helpful compared to what is originally necessary.

[JDodge]

Again, there is no reliable scum reaction for anything. What makes this any different? Even if a townie comes under suspicion for the trap, don't you think that will still help us in the long run? Personally, I don't think you "ran in and defused the trap" like you said. I think you stumbled right into it and are now trying to cover that up.

Scum claims (and similar) are different for the simple reason that grounds for suspicion are infinitely easier to contrive (there's no difficulty in claiming scum) and don't require the "claimer" (our apparent scumhunter) to actually justify themself with any meaningful explanation.

Which is again not necessarily true. Any good player

would

ask for the reasoning behind the trap, and if the person did not give it, it would then be admissable to call it into question.

Concocting arguments to prove someone's guilt isn't hard - we all do it when we are scum. However, it's also dangerous for scum because it requires them go out on a limb and present arguments which not only need to be decent at the time, but that they need to keep a consistent playstyle in light of.

How "difficult" or "dangerous" it is depends on so many variables that to make a blanket statement saying "X is more Y than Z" in this situation is fallacious.

I don't think a townie being caught will be helpful in the long run. If traps are reasonable, and voting people based on their reactions is reasonable then, bravo, you've created an easy-access method for scum to push lynches.

Your logic only holds if you automatically assume that town is going to follow traps without question - if they do, then quite frankly they're not doing their jobs well enough.

As for there being no such thing as a reliable scumtell generally, I agree with you. All of the stuff you said about going into detailed analysis etc. is required no matter what the situation is. The point is that it's a lot easier to dissect arguments and logic than it is to judge reactions to things like scum claims. While any assessment requires consideration of the individual's playstyle, at least when it comes to the former class of things there are explicit things to look out for that don't depend entirely on how you read the individual (eg. contradictions from an experienced player, kid-glove distancing, etc.).

It is very easy to dissect a reaction. You are assuming that every reaction to any single action is one-sided, and you are assuming that every reaction is single-layered. There is actually a wealth of information to be had when you analyze deep enough.

But in the end, most everything in the game boils down to that; either someone who does something, be it claim scum or whatever, is either scum or town. Your point actually works against scumclaim as a scumtell; if both town and scum can do it, it's not really alignment-indicative is it?

Scum and town can pretty much act any way they want during the day. Both have the ability to do

anything

within the constraints of the rules and their role.

Things that are factors in indicating alignment are behaviours which are ostensibly anti-town. Nothing is a total proof (again, both can do anything). I've already explained why I think scum claims are anti-town (for those of you watching at home, it's because there's nothing to suggest they are good at catching scum and will most likely end up hurting the town by casting suspicion on townies)

Again, anti-town =/= scum. This is a huge imposition on your argument. Furthermore, you have to take into account that there's nothing to suggest

anything

is good at catching scum and won't end up hurting the townies.

I just told you how to reliably assess them. When you can't win an argument, say "you're missing my point" and ignore the other person! What a brilliant debate tactic.

You did miss my point, though.

Your comments on deep analysis and psychological roadmaps have my entire agreement. That's the sort of thing that one needs to do in response to any tell, so you needn't have pointed that out to me. What you missed was what I had been trying to get across regarding the reliability of any assessment of scum claim reactions.

And I'm saying that is how you can assess scum claim reactions reliably. I got your point - you ignored my explanation.

JDodge, if you had said: "Scum claim. Unvote, Vote: Adel" I would not have had a clue how to go about working out what your intentions were. I couldn't start from the assumption that you agreed with me. I'd be stuck thinking "Maybe JDodge is being opportunistic, but he might just have the view that Adel is serious or is being anti-town." It would basically be rendered as a null-tell in my head at that point.

That kind of disproves your whole "scum-claims are anti-town" thing.

I am voting you because you hopped on Adel's wagon while even stating that you did not know how a scum claim is scummy.

2) You hopped on a wagon because "claiming scum is scummy" without any substantiating evidence anywhere.

I'm voting for Adel because she committed behaviour which I think is anti-town, ergo a factor indicating scumminess. If Adel explains herself adequately, not to point of achieving my agreement (we'd be here arguing for a looong time), I will unvote and file her scum claim away in the null tell box.

You have not properly substantiated your arguments. That is the issue.

1) As with all tells, how reliably you can judge someone with it largely varies from person-to-person, situation, etc.

I just mean generally. If X votes Y after a Y scum claim, do you find that you can reliably analyse X?

I find that I can reliably analyze Y to a level of close to full understanding and reliably analyze X to a general enough sense to tell if X's reaction is scum-like or town-like, yes.

Ugh, you're one of those lynch-all-liars fanatics aren't you.

No, I don't advocate LAL. I've lied as town in the past.

My exact position is lynch-all-liars-unless-I-can-understand-what-they-are-doing-or-they-explain-themselves-to -me.

Essentially your exact position is "lynch anyone who lies unless I can conceive what they're trying to do", which is a dangerous precedent. Better is "lynch all liars unless I perceive their lie to be scummy", since you actually know what they're doing.

So you have no problem lynching a townie if they're supposedly "anti-town"?

I don't think I have ever lynched someone over a single anti-town play. I do, however, treat anti-town plays as scumminess indicators until they argue their case decently.

This answer does not answer my yes-or-no question.

Testing the waters.

If town puts themselves in the open with arguments that can be logically analyzed, they are also liable to fail. Anyone is liable to fail at arguing. Anyone is liable to fail at anything, which is what makes your argument so shaky. And really, if you think voting on gut/feeling is scummy, then there's a bit more of an issue there.

Failure at argument doesn't equal automatic lynch. I know that lots of people aren't comfortable at it. However, serious, uncharacteristic failures/discrepancies are the things that I scumhunt from.

And yeah, I have issues with the gut.

1. Explain issues with gut, please. I feel this is an important avenue to persue.
2. Good enough.

What will you accept? How can I show you exactly what I mean when you just brush it off as nothing?

I think one aspect of this is the fact that I find such reactions pretty much impossible to judge as anything but null-tells, without some outside evidence strong enough to push my mental see-saw one way or the other. In that sense, short of crash course in "Reaction Judging ala JDodge" I'm not going to be swung round to agree with you.

That said, I see the sense in what you are saying and, were it not for the fact that I still don't think this can be judged reliably (again, the votes on me proved this to me), I would agree with you entirely.

How can the votes on you prove that reactions are entirely null-tells or incorrect, especially when there are other circumstances?

[JDodge]

Scum claims (and similar) are different for the simple reason that grounds for suspicion are infinitely easier to contrive (there's no difficulty in claiming scum) and don't require the "claimer" (our apparent scumhunter) to actually justify themself with any meaningful explanation.

Which is again not necessarily true. Any good player would ask for the reasoning behind the trap, and if the person did not give it, it would then be admissable to call it into question.

And what extent of "reasoning behind the trap" would you find acceptable?

An explanation along the lines of "To gather reactions" pretty much covers all bases, but I don't find it very reassuring at all. My paranoia

It's more case-by-case.

Again, if you're going solely by

to gather reactions

, you're not pressing the trap-setter enough.

How "difficult" or "dangerous" it is depends on so many variables that to make a blanket statement saying "X is more Y than Z" in this situation is fallacious.

A major variable here will be your answer as to what level of reasoning behind the trap is reasonable.

However, if that reasoning is less intricate and requires less work than a proper case would, I feel it quite likely that the latter will be more difficult.

Of course, anything in mafia is going to be subject to a whole range of variables, but in most circumstances I know that if I was scum and had the choice between contriving suspicion from a trap and having to build a case, I'd go for the former in a heartbeat (in the hypothetical scenario that I didn't have an established loathing of trapping which would cause meta-inconsistency)

How intricate the reasoning depends on how intricate the trap, and again, towns need to push trap-setters more. Automatically assuming scum based on "setting a trap" is just as scummy as "setting a trap" is in your hypothetical.

Your logic only holds if you automatically assume that town is going to follow traps without question - if they do, then quite frankly they're not doing their jobs well enough.

Yes. I am assuming that town can fall for a trap. I mean, I can fully envisage someone reasonably taking Adel's claim as genuine, voting someone that trappingly calls for a lynch on someone else, etc.

Of course, the townies in question might not have taken the trouble to really think things through in the fullest way, or they might just be incapable of doing so.

Exactly my point.

Again, anti-town =/= scum. This is a huge imposition on your argument. Furthermore, you have to take into account that there's nothing to suggest anything is good at catching scum and won't end up hurting the townies.

And I never said that antitown = scum. In fact, I said that nothing is a total proof.

Things which are anti-town are worth looking into and investigating, because they are good potential leads for scumminess.

And yes, I doubt that there is anything that doesn't have the possibility of hurting town. I've given my reasons as to why I think traps are more dangerous (and we are still discussing those reasons) than conventional argument.

Traps are less dangerous if you know how to read into them, and I really don't think this two-sided argument is getting anywhere; for one, it's entirely based on a playstyle argument, and furthermore we're falling into a pattern of just repeating ourselves over and over again.

JDodge, if you had said: "Scum claim. Unvote, Vote: Adel" I would not have had a clue how to go about working out what your intentions were. I couldn't start from the assumption that you agreed with me. I'd be stuck thinking "Maybe JDodge is being opportunistic, but he might just have the view that Adel is serious or is being anti-town." It would basically be rendered as a null-tell in my head at that point.

That kind of disproves your whole "scum-claims are anti-town" thing.

No it doesn't. It shows that I personally find reactions to these sorts of things meaningless. The possibility for people to come under suspicion for allegedly falling into the trap leads to the anti-town effects.

I misunderstood what you'd said there. My apologies. It shows that you know how to read into reactions in the correct manner for how the trap works; it is my psychological read on the trap that Adel was not looking to see who voted, but what they said in regards to it. I would also file that away as a null-tell, although I might prod into it a bit more asking

why

it's scummy (as I've already proven).

I find that I can reliably analyze Y to a level of close to full understanding and reliably analyze X to a general enough sense to tell if X's reaction is scum-like or town-like, yes.

Okay. Then our respective abilities on this front are going to be a source of continuous disagreement. I've already said that I don't trust myself to make a good judgment on these sorts of things. You say that you can do this.

Thus, you are going to be able to find value in such traps more often than I will.

Which is

exactly why you do not run in and "disarm" a trap before anyone has the chance to react on it

. Even if you can't read it, perhaps somebody else can and can explain to you what the tells are within said reactions.

This answer does not answer my yes-or-no question.

So you have no problem lynching a townie if they're supposedly "anti-town"?

Yes.

I don't lynch people on singular anti-town behaviours. I don't lynch people on a couple of behaviours. If I see a sufficient number (varies with circumstances) of anti-town behaviours which are unexplained upon my pressuring and which seem "scummy" to me (again, a judgment that varies wildly based on circumstances) then I will probably be happy to lynch them.

Makes sense.

1. Explain issues with gut, please. I feel this is an important avenue to persue.

Just so I am clear that we are talking about the same thing, I mean things like:

Vote: X

My gut tells me he's scum

This sort of thing sets me rabid. Rather than giving evidence which everyone can assess, Joe adduces a subjective feeling that nobody can argue with. If Joe is called to explain his vote - he doesn't have to since it's "gut".

Whenever I get "gut" feelings about people, that often prompts me to reread them a little more carefully - but hell will freeze over before I vote because of that feeling.

The truth of the matter is that you

cannot

play on gut alone, nor can you play on logic alone. Both must be used to complement each other in such a way that you can effectively see clearly into who is scum and who isn't.

How can the votes on you prove that reactions are entirely null-tells or incorrect, especially when there are other circumstances?

I'm not sure I entirely follow your question.

The fact that I have votes on me for voting Adel after her scum claim proves to me that both you and Adel (two players I respect) were not able to correctly evaluate me. I'm not saying that the fact you were wrong proves without a doubt that you can never be correct on these things, but it further supported my belief that voting for scum claim reactions is dodgy (no pun intended).

I have no clue what I meant when I wrote that question either.

But again,

I am not voting based on your reaction to the claim

. I am voting you based on two factors:

1) The intent to deprive the town of potentially useful information from reactions to the trap
2) The ease with which you voted someone stating that you didn't necessarily know why you found it scummy.

[JDodge]

[02] Please be attentive and unvote, if necessary, before casting a new vote. Its not critical, but my wrath may fall..

Mod

: This means Phate's vote counts from my perspective

What can I say, my wrath fell. - Mod

[JDodge]

Bleh. I disagree with me on this one; vollkan seems genuine enough.

Unvote, vote: kabenon

[JDodge]

No, you see, the fact that he called it a strong accusation and said "WAS" as you pointed out, meant that he took it, at one point, to be a strong accusation. As in the past. But then it was downgraded. But at one point he did in fact take it as a strong accusation. Why are you defending vollkan for him?

Then why the hell are you attacking him on supposedly saying two things at the same time when you admit yourself that he said that it was an admission that his past feelings have changed? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

[JDodge]

"I might reasonably do that as town".

Change "I" to "Somebody", and you have my perspective. That's why I think you're too harsh.

But too harsh =/= scum, even when there's a meta on it.

Where's everybody else?

Watching the fireworks, waiting for kabenon's lynch

[JDodge]

I believe he is dodging posts, hiding behind his long lengths of text and using them to make it look like he is adding a great deal of content without actually doing so. If you can say it with less words, then say it with less words. It need not be prettied up with repetition and huge explanations. In my opinon, they are just empty words.

I'm verbose. Deal with it.

It's just my writing style - repetition for emphasis and explanations for logical transparency.

So you agree that you are using repetitions as a manner of artificially inflating your points?

[JDodge]

Adel, sup with NabNab?

Every read about Game theory?

I choose one player at the beginning of the game to believe is pro town (3/4 chance of being right) and he is the player I picked.

The way I see it, the tactic to maximize the town's chances of success is for every player to preted they are confirmed masons with one other player. One quarter will be making a horrible decision, but that will be more than balanced out by the other three quarters who get to have a very benifical relationship.

The issue is that you seem to be using this as an excuse to not have any opinions of your own, which is

not

beneficial in any way. Who do

you

(not NabNab, take the NabNab thing out of the equation) think is suspicious?

[JDodge]

vollkan is a horrid wagon. He explained himself perfectly, and quite frankly I think the way he said "hey I was wrong" seemed genuine enough to make him a terrible play for now. kabenon has not explained himself at all.

[JDodge]

Like, he gets a person in his sights and doesn't provide information about them, he just goes "Oh lynch so-and-so die scum die lols."

Where has he ever not given a wealth of information on how he feels?

If anything,

you

fit this description rather well.

[JDodge]

OK then, it is out of context. This is what I get for posting late at night when I'm not really paying attention in the first place. Replace that first part (regarding vollkan) with "then what do you call the big argument with vollkan"?

I'd defend myself from your accusation, but vollkan has done that rather well (which is somewhat odd IMO) for me.

[JDodge]

read this newbie game if you want to see Mizzy play as town

unvote, vote Mizzy

with me if you want to lynch her as scum.

I've seen Mizzy play like this as town before (can't reference, ongoing).

[JDodge]

read this newbie game if you want to see Mizzy play as town

unvote, vote Mizzy

with me if you want to lynch her as scum.

I've seen Mizzy play

like this

as town before (can't reference, ongoing).

how would you characterize her play?

i can't really give an exact wording to it lest i reveal info

[JDodge]

Right when I return, and night falls. On the plus side, we can talk at night too, so any discussion that need be had can happen privately.

Vote: No Lynch

uh, no we can't

hence the name

day

talk

[JDodge]

Hey, I just remembered! You know who can talk at night? Scum.

I wonder how Phate could possibly have gotten through 2 nights without knowing that there was no night talking unless he was allowed to be talking at night with someone...

[JDodge]

Phate, Adel: Votes off.

I don't really think that either of you are scum. I think Adel's logic (assuming I'm guessing what it is properly) is flawed and that Phate is not smart enough to do something simple like read the fucking rules.

[JDodge]

Damnit. I knew it was Guardian, I just needed Adel and Phate to stop acting like that first.

[JDodge]

How'd you know?

You have a very specific and glaringly obvious tell that I'm not going to tell you.

[JDodge]

Why don't you want to improve my quality of play?

Whatever, not sure I even believe you.

I'd rather be able to read you efficiently and effectively than help you improve yourself. I tend to care about my ability to play well than yours.

[JDodge]

I think JDodge is BS-ing. If the tell was that glaringly obvious, why didn't he attempt to push for your lynch on Day 2 or at least mention his suspicion of you on Day 2?

Because it came along later. I was waiting on Phate to stop acting like an idiot and Adel to realize her logic was flawed first.

Not helping improve the play of everyone around you is anti-site, imo. If I saw a glaring obvious and consistent tell for someone I played with often, I'd tell them it to improve the quality of play on the site.

Not doing so would be anti-site.

So lowering my quality of play to improve yours is somehow not anti-site? The quality of

my

play is more important to me than the quality of

your

play, and quite frankly telling everyone exactly what's wrong with them would lead solely to stagnation and is in fact more anti-site. So I would recommend you do something you do not do in your mafia play the next time you want to accuse me of something, and use a shred of logic as opposed to the solely OMGUS-motivated crap that you have a tendency towards (see: whining every time someone thinks you should be lynched). Grow up.