mrfixij wrote:vollkan wrote:Disagree.
Votes for "pressure" without any argument behind them are purely meaningless. Town cannot defend themselves because, by definition, there is nothing to defend against.
The only effect of a "pressure" vote is to, potentially, cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town. It ultimately just reflects the ability of the players and says squat about their alignment.
I'll prove it:
Unvote, Vote: mrfixij
Feeling pressured?
...
Not even a little bit?
With this I disagree. In the absence of power roles (which is the effective situation that exists on day 1), no CERTAINTY of scum can be established. From a strictly numerical and probability standpoint, each vote exponentially increases your chance of being lynched. While a drastic oversimplification of the voting process, mathematically it remains true.
Being that we have 10 players, assume 10 unloaded 10-sided dice. It would take 6 dice landing on the same number to lynch. If votes were
truly
random, if each vote is taken sequentially, two consecutive rolls landing on the same number drastically increases the chance of said number reaching the quota of 6. It means that rather than 3/5 of the total pool, it requires 1/2 of the remaining pool to lynch, 10% less than required previously. If a player has more votes on him, a significantly lesser percentage of the remaining player pool needs to vote for him to lynch him. Granted, there is a significant subjective degree, but as stated above, this is a dramatic oversimplification, much like a spherical cow in physics.
As arguments get tossed around, posts are torn apart and logic becomes shaky, the dice begin to get loaded, or as we call it in mafia, a player looks "scummy". This means that a player is more likely to receive a vote from any given player. If you pack this on top of the reduced portion of the player pool required to lynch, you begin to see the numeric effect of pressure votes. It is a general fallacy to consider objectively that where a vote is cast is a scumtell. The first vote is just as damning as the last mathematically, instead we use a psychological tendency of where a vote is, in turn playing a WIFOM game.
Again, I believe we view the game from different eyes. I see a vote as a primary indication of probability adjustment and the reasoning as a secondary adjustment on top of said vote. I believe I understand the general priority of your logic, but have a hard time verbalizing it.
What's your point? I said as much just before (only with less verbosity):
mrfixij wrote: - My self-voting has negligible risk of causing a quick-lynch (since it was only the second vote for myself) (in fact, in this game it was no risk at all but that isn't relevant, I know)
- My self-voting has a very good chance of causing some rats to come out of the woodwork to attack me. Being a player who hunts scum through argument, that's highly desirable from my perspective.
- In other words, minimal potential cost and a high likelihood of benefit. Thus, it is a good action for town (and especially town-vollkan)
Sure, it makes it minutely more likely that I may be lynched, but I doubt you could tell me with a straight face that it carried an unacceptable level of risk - especially relative to the information potential.
I can't see how it is defensible to approach things in terms of "probability adjustment" when the "probability" you rely upon is but a minute part of the overall effect of somebody self-voting (or doing anything, as the case may be).
mrfixij wrote:
Policy.
Wonderful.
In which case, you cannot justify saying my action gives you a "minor" suspicion.
All you've shown is that from one (fundamentally-flawed and narrow) policy perspective my actions were anti-town.
ecto wrote: First off, whether those other votes had reasoning has little bearing on a self-vote being an anti-town move (notice I did not say scummy).
2nd, you invalidated your point that there was nothing different between their vote and your vote by the manner in which you did it.
I dispute the label "anti-town" as much as I do the label "scummy" - either constitutes an attack against me. I've shown above why self-voting was justified.
Ecto wrote: You didn't give a reason, yet ask the rhetorical question of why you would vote for yourself. I've yet to hear a pro-town reason for it in any discussion I've read and participated in.
You here imply and leave it hanging that you have some special reason. Hence, you've been asked to explain yourself, which you are welcome to do without answering with a question in return yourself. No dodging the question Ehh? Good.
I gave my pro-town reason for it (and I shall respond to your attacks on said reason shortly). And, also, it's an argument from ignorance to say that my action is anti-town or scummy because you haven't heard a pro-town reason for it. The onus is on you to prove that
my
action (not the action of fixij's spherical cow) was objectively-speaking scummy and/or anti-town.
ecto wrote:
3rd - Do you really think you are the first player with the wonderful idea of voting themselves to spur discussion? Here's a good paraphrase of why its crap move from your own mouth.
V wrote: The only effect of a "pressure" vote is to, potentially, cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town. It ultimately just reflects the ability of the players and says squat about their alignment.
The only effect of a "self" vote is to, potentially cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town because self-voting is inherently a bad play. Any reaction from a player says squat about their alignment
That means, despite your smarmy last comment, I ask of you the same question you asked yourself. You said it to stand out, now you've been called out on it. Dont tell me you didnt have an answer prepared. Or did you expect to be able to say "AHAH! Someone asked me about my self-vote, gotcha scum!!"
No. I actually learned the discussion-seeking self-vote from Adel and I know for a fact that it is hardly unheard of.
The analogy you draw between pressure voting and self-voting is weak.
See, both town and scum can (and do) flip under pressure, especially newbies. Experienced players will tend to regard pressure votes as meaningless - after all, they aren't based on anything. Ultimately, then, all pressure voting does is just contrive a reaction which is alignment-independent. Town have good reason to freak under pressure, and so do scum. (And there is absolutely no evidence for the argument that, since scum have higher stakes, they will freak out more.)
Self-voting is very different. People who attack self-voting can be challenged to provide reasons for said attack. In turn, argument begins. Argument in and of itself good for finding scum because of the fact that scum, basicaly, have slippery logic in their arguments - to allow them to fulfill their objectives. But, beyond that, it provides a test of how far people are willing to take a losing case against the self-voter (and I say "losing case" because the absolutist anti-self-voting case is dismally weak).
In other words, pressure votes rely on drawing inferences based on alignment-independent reactions. Self-voting relies on drawing players into rational debate and seeing the logic behind people's attacks.
Notice - I have never once said that those who attacked me are scummy for doing so simpliciter. I am paying close attention to the arguments being made, and scrutinising them, but my strategy (or is that "tactic"
) doesn't rely simply on saying "GOTCHA SCUM".
I asked you about what distinguished my self-vote to see whether you could actually articulate a coherent, contextual explanation of why my self-vote was anti-town and/or scummy.
Ecto wrote:
vollkan wrote: I don't care how "minor" a suspicion is. If you suspect me for something, you have to prove that it is scummy.
And,"I don't like it"/"distaste" is NOT an acceptable justification for suspecting something!
Wrong. While it would be nice for us to understand why he has a suspicion, he doesnt have to "prove" it is scummy. (By the way that's a scummy attitude in games I've played Vollkan. Scum gets into a "You got no case on me Copper, you cant prove nuttin" frame of mind)
First off, I can prove that, in my case, a loathing of "distate" and "I don't like it" is entirely consistent.
This is a policy list I have posted a few times in the past. See
here for the one that sprang to mind. You also only have to have a glance through my history to see the number of times where I have ranted at people who make subjective, feeling-based arguments ("gut" suspicion being the worst)
Pay particular attention to rule number 3.
vollkan wrote:
Vollkan's Ground Rules
1) I use a % system to rank people.
a: 0% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed town. 100% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed scum.
b: The rankings refer to behaviour unless otherwise stated. Someone that has claimed cop may still get a rating of 60% if their play has been worth 60%. I may also give them a probability ranking that factors in their claim.
c: Everybody starts at 50%.
d: Someone who has neither a preponderance of scumtells or towntells will receive 50%.
e: Any unreadable lurker will receive 50%
f: It is rare for me to give people a ranking below 50% (see section 2) below)
2) I am exceptionally skeptical of "town tells" and am reluctant to positively identify people as being "likely town". I have no issue with identifying the "less scummy" but I do not like identifying the "more towny".
3) Any player who justifies a vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. on one of the following:
a) 'Hunch';
b) 'Gut';
c) 'Feeling';
d) 'Belief'; or
e) Anything that has a meaning similar to those of the above
will receive a stern demand from me that they give objective reasons for their vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. Should they fail to do so, my expectation is that the vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. will be dropped. If not, then they can expect their % ranking to increase.
4) If you want to play in a chaotic fashion, that's fine. However, if I can't understand what you are doing I will demand an explanation and justification. If you don't provide me with one, your % ranking will increase.
5) Any person who accuses another person of being scum for one of the following:
a) Over-reaction;
b) Lurking;
c) Aggression;
d) Bandwagoning (see section 6) below);
Can expect their % ranking to increase.
6) Bandwagoning is not a scumtell. Voting with crap reasons is a scumtell. I don't give a toss how many times you vote, but I care very deeply about your reasons for doing so.
7) I hate lurkers. If you do not post decently within a reasonable timeframe, I will bombard you with questions and, very likely, demand you provide a full scumdar with at least 2 sentences per person. If you choose not to do so, I will expect that you desist from posting and allow yourself to be replaced.
8) Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.
9) If I make a mistake somewhere I will point out that I have made tremendous cock-ups as town in a number of games. If you choose to entirely ignore these meta-references, your % ranking will rise.
10) If you are finding the game too 'difficult' or 'complex' either read up or replace out.
11) Don't complain about my posts being too long.
In short, I refuse to accept the legitimacy of any argument unless it has objective backing.
That is to say, you can give me an answer which, at some level, is not reducible to "I don't like it"
And the onus in this game is most definitely on the accuser. The best way to catch scum is on the basis of poor reasoning for attacks. As such, mandating rigorous levels of justification forces scum into a corner. Every time we legitimise somebody to rely on feeling, the town's grave is dug a little deeper.
Ecto wrote:
Players are allowed to play by gut, and I've seen some that are very good at it. It is optimum for them to be able to convince town of why their gut is pointing at a player, but we dont have "game lawyers" who will come busting into the thread to force him to "prove it".
1) Name me just one good gut player
2) Even if you can satisfy 1), that doesn't justify giving every person who plays by gut the benefit of the doubt
3) See my point above - there is an inherent advantage for town in forcing objective reasons.
4) We don't game lawyers because there are players who are able to impose onus of proof rules themselves.
I can see we are going to enjoy this game, Ecto :p
Ecto wrote: Now back to your own question, and no dodging this. Answer it. The cop out answer of "it spurred discussion" wont cut it.
But I have answered it
Why is discussion unacceptable to you? (and note, my reason was not "it spurred discussion" (empirical) but that it could spur discussion (theoretical)). That was the point of my utility analysis. Vollkan self-voting had more benefit than vollkan not doing so.
Ecto wrote: Oh my, we wouldn't want to appear to be idiots casting shadows from your amazing brilliance. Only idiots would disagree with you? You might find yourself in a crowd of them. Mtfixij already has the right of things. You are so bent upon the thought that your logic is infallable that you dont seem to care to listen though.
I'm perfectly cognisant of my own fallibility. It's just that this is an issue I have given a lot of thought to over my time here, and I don't believe that anti-self-voting case is defensible. And fixij is certainly NOT on the right track.
Ecto wrote: P.S. - a self-vote may be anti-town, but is not inherently scummy. I DO find Vollkan's maneuvering and justification for his anti-town move to be scummy. Calling the town idiots or scum unless they agree with him is a perfect example of lower level psychological manipulation.
Maneuvering? What maneuvering? I've given a clear, objective explanation for my actions. I haven't resorted to abstract theory and I haven't resorted to feelings.
And I intended my "scum or idiots" entirely, and stand by it.
(and, judging by your previous post, you are also from Aus - so that's doubly good)
