Logical vs. Behavioral Scumhunting

[GreenLiquid]

As scum, I think it is generally unwise to use faulty logic (aka logical fallacies) to lead the town astray, as they are easy to point out and will probably get you lynched before you can even cause one mislynch. Rather, you want to make suggestions or speculations that slowly nudge the town in the wrong direction, without giving away hints as to what you're doing. Instead of saying "I think guy is scum because [logical fallacy]", it's a better idea in the long run to say "Guy is just giving me anti-town vibes, and I don't like the way he says this, etc." This is subjective reasoning, and people can only call you out on subjective reasoning if you end up wrong.

Scum that focus purely on acting pro-town must be willing to bus without mercy. If they see their scumbuddy do something that would earn them a vote if the player was a townie, he'd better vote. Looking pro-town is more focused on keeping the scum alive longer. But, if you're not leading the town astray by casting suspicion on townies, it'll be that much harder to get a townie lynched, and power roles may win the day.

Good scum groups should be able to combine these approaches. The perfect combo can result in some town mislynches, then put a scum in the clear. The classic example is a mafioso, using bad reasoning or plain suspicion casting, gets a cop or something lynched. The next day, one of his scum buddies attacks him and gets him lynched, then looks like a good guy.

All in all, it depends. Is the person more likely to use logical fallacies or gentle nudging as scum? Does anybody who looks protown look suspicious or somehow out of whack? Does a certain player never vote for a certain other player? You have to look for subtle clues when scum hunting, and good players (i.e. not I) can do this very effectively.

[GreenLiquid]

Can you define "Logical Scumhunting" and "Behavioural Scumhunting" for me?

I think it's looking for scum by checking for faulty reasoning versus looking for scum by looking at behavior patterns or their subjective arguments. Any town worth its salt should be looking at both IMO.

[GreenLiquid]

Townies use plenty of bad logic, perhaps more than scum. I'm not sure either logical or behavioral scumhunting works at all, for the average player. What does work is 1) cop investigations and 2) catching people in bad role claims.

It's absolutely not a good idea to rely on cop investigations to find scum. What if the cop dies? What if there is no cop? Things like claims and cops help, but if you entirely rely on them, you're going to have a hard time winning the game as town.

[GreenLiquid]

You use any strategy that works. Without claims and cops, you'll have to look at speaking and voting behavior, which can be fun and isn't wholly useless (and is arguably the most in the spirit of the game), but is much less effective if the scum are competent enough not to make dumb mistakes.

But to use

only

claims and cops means everything boils down to one massclaim. If, for example, the godfather buses to get in a really good claim, that undermines both of those tactics.

[GreenLiquid]

I was probably unclear in my first post here; I didn't mean to say they're not tactics you should use, just that they probably won't work compared to analyzing the night game.

Ah, ok I get you now. If anything, I suspect the issue boils down to objective vs. subjective reasoning, and you most certainly need some of each to get anywhere. I think claims and investigations probably fall more under objective reasoning.

[GreenLiquid]

That'd mean giving up causing the town to mislynch in favor of looking innocent, to an extent.

Precisely. Outright logical fallacies are a good way to get called out quickly, town or scum. Speculation and subjective opinions can't just get called out. The only way you can be 'caught' with those is by ending up wrong.

Exactly. The rest of your post is basically telling me things aren't so simple, which I realize perfectly well. That doesn't effect my basic theory, though.

It's possible that scum will shift one way or the other. But they most likely won't (and shouldn't) do so as a group. Each scum is going to go a certain way based on what's happened thus far and his preferences, or possibly based on a busing plan. The catch, though, is that the scum acting town are very hard to call out without using subjective reasoning yourself.

Said "gentle nudging" is often the same as logical fallacies, only cleverer. It's really hard to consistedly cause the town to mislynch using only good logic.

Gentle nudging isn't a fallacy on the scum's part... it's a fallacy on the town's part if they begin to accept it.

Why would anyone ever do that?

If that person is their scumbuddy. It does sound stupid, but people actually do so on a rather regular basis.

Town and scum have the same average intelligence. Scum sorta have to use bad logic, though. While my method will obvioulsly get lots of stupid townies lynched (which has the additional benefit improving the general level of play), I think it's the most efficient in the long run.

I would have to agree, but I you seem to be thinking too black-and-white. Mafia isn't simple enough to be balanced by equations or anything like that. Good scum are going to be subtle. Really good scum will not use fallacies themselves, but rather make townies use them.

Subjective reasoning is sort of the mafia equivelent of propaganda, if that metaphor helps. You keep echoing a certain idea, and you can get the town to accept it. One fatal mistake of many towns is to entirely rely on people's anaylses. That error is thanks to scum giving opinions that put townies in a bad light, then agreeing with an congratulating townies who also take their stance.

[GreenLiquid]

This is true if and only if pro-town players are always (or even mostly) correct in their play, which is not necessarily the case.

True, but any traceable link at all is bad: you don't know if a player is going to pick up on your mistake until after you make it, so it's probably better to avoid making it altogether.