Adel wrote:
Ever hear of a mislynch? I know you have. In my experience, the best way to ensure a mislynch, especially early in a game, is to pressure an inexperienced player until they make a mistake. They pretty much lynch themselves at that point. Since I am feeling that Jive machine is more likely town than scum at this point, that leaves me with the conclusion that you are scummier than Pooky. I hope I don't offend Pooky by this, but I think that our playstyles have some aspects in common, or at least enough for me to understand that Pooky behavior is more of a null-tell than a scum-tell, especially this early in a game.
I assume this is directed to me.
I play by argument more than anything else, and I am aware of the need for caution in arguing with the inexperienced. TJM's responses were contradictory, and that's scummy no matter who it comes from. I didn't vote him for his deflection to CKD , since I knew that might be attributable to inexperience, but he crossed the threshold when he started making contradictory comments about his priorities in his actions towards Pooky.
Adel, I've played with you before (mini 488) and I know that your playstyle can be eccentric - but I can usually see its direction. I haven't played before with Pooky before and I couldn't see the point of his play - it jumped out to me as making no contribution, escalating suspicion (particularly re: shafted) and basically as a form of active lurking.
Pooky wrote:
Why do you expect pointed questioning to get results?
I think there is a certain effect to having a pointed questioning/reasoned attack prematurely, it does lift the light off others players and put less pressure on them to find their own suspects, I've realized that oftentimes a discussion dominated by a single interrogator or other can lock others outside of the discussion and allow more crafty scum to quietly agree their way in.
That isn't my experience, but I respect that it might be yours (and that you might well be correct).
I don't like to see games degenerate into a 1 on 1 argument. The reason I like questions and arguments is that it usually provides insight into how people play the game and forces well-reasoned discussion - in that it provides an environment most difficult for scum to hide in.
Pooky wrote:
Generally I believe people who come up with numbering systems that try to quantify the suspicion they have for people to be fairly suspicious. I have no doubt that you might do this numbering thing in every game or put scary numbers next to people's names to inflate suspicion and give your opinion more of a scientific weight. But I do find such quantification to be fairly poor logic because of the connective nature of mafia and also because the number doesnt really mean anything, how much more suspicious is a person of score 200 than score 300? Is it more or less than the jump between 80 and a hundred? what type of scoring scale are you going for?
My initial reason for coming up with it let me show my relative suspicions of people, rather than ambiguous things like "X is my main suspect", "I suspect X more than Y" or "X seems pro-town".
Also, it serves me as a point of reference: I can look back to where I had someone at , say, 60% and track their behaviour since then to work out the increase.
There is no "scoring scale" as such - as in, it doesn't involve any sort of objective point of reference (eg. nothing like "A contradiction earns +15%"). A person I see nothing telling (either way) on will get a 50%.
From there, I consider my reasons for suspecting the person and place them somewhere along the spectrum based on how strong the reasons are. The purpose is not to try and make my subjective feelings seem objective. I make the % list because it lets me be clear about exactly how I feel about each person as an individual and relative to each other.
CKD wrote:
the only thing that is different this time, is that vollkan is not doing the group, just the people he can vote for. In this regard, I agree with pooky, you should do one on your team as well. For pook's "team" has to vote as well (noted you said you would do it).
And I agree with you and Pooky here, as well (it will be at the end of this post). I should have included it initially, but I didn't.
Pooky wrote:
If Vollkan does the % thing in every game previous to this one and then does the % thing in this game then it would show the Vollkan is keeping his behaviour in line with previous behaviour, he is not trying anything new, he is trying the same old stuff in order to stay in character.
I do the % thing each game not for the sake of being consistent, but because it is the easiest way for me to express my suspicions - and it fits with my personal emphasis on transparent arguments.
Pooky wrote:
That suggests that he is more wary of trying something new in order to play his cards tight to his chest and is following the standard "Make up bullshit numbers, say stuff that everyone can see, attack vigorously the weak players that you can get lynched because they can't defend themselves" formula that I would expect VolkScum to be using.
Or he could just really like the way he plays and be determined to do that same thing over and over again.
It's the latter, not that I don't expect skepticism from you. I'm more comfortable arguing (whether in attack or defence) than anything else, and the number system gives me a firm way of monitoring my suspicions. It is a "safe" style of play, but it has worked very well for me so far and I see no reason to play in a way that doesn't suit me.
Analysis of NLU
TJM
- Casts what looks like a peer pressure vote for shaft.ed ("Fiiiiiine"). Then proceeds to FoS Pooky, only to vote Pooky once he comes under pressure. Then he contradicts himself in regards to his priorities - valuing his own safety above pursuing suspicions. And, to top it off, he collapses into defeatism. Jive gets a
75%
CKD
- I'm not keen on the fact that he seems to treat Pooky's "we" as a reliable tell - though his acknowledgment that it was only an early suspicion mitigates this. Runs with unclear hunches on adel and armlx for some time, and I really don't like suspicions based on "hunch" or "feeling" - you can't make someone argue a "hunch". I don't follow his reasoning for voting TJM based on TJM's suspicion of CKD's hunches, which makes this possibly look like scum contriving an "original" reason to join a wagon.
70%
Adel
- Her wagoning looked to me like random wake-up wagoning and this was supported by her calling it "stirring the pot". She does vote shaft.ed, but unvotes once he explains himself. Her vote for TJM isn't explained, but before that she had referred to his atrocious posts. She doesn't contrive a reason of her own. Adel's play is difficult for me to get a firm read on, but there is nothing patently scummy about it.
55%
shaft.ed
- My first problem with shaft.ed was his attack on Adel for wagonning, but he explained this very well. His suspicions are pretty clearly explained. shaft.ed still seems a bit quieter than I am used to from him, but I don't see anything suspicious.
50%
.
