Logical vs. Behavioral Scumhunting
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Logical vs. Behavioral Scumhunting
This issue of my game philosophy is being debated in quite a few games of mine atm. The main purpose of this thread is to center all these issues in one thread, thereby preventing any actual games from degrading to irrelevant discussions. I also think it's a real interesting for people who aren't in games with me as well, and generally want as much feedback as possible from basically anyone. I greatly appreciate your response.
My basic thinking is as follows:
Scum have two goals in using their logic - pretend to think protown, and cause to town to mislynch. At some point, they'll have to compromise one in favor of the other.
They have only on behavioral goal, however, which is to act as pro town as they possibly can.
Logical scumhunting is therefore inherently more efficient, because it capitalizes on mistakes scum are eventually bound to make.
Logical scumhunting also has the considerable benefit of improving the town's quality of play - by suspecting any use of bad logic, you're basically forcing everyone to think twice before making a play. This also makes it far more difficult for scum to "accidentally" make bad plays.
I'm not completely discounting behavioral scumhunting, of course - it can certainly be useful in certain situations, but it's by far the less efficient method imo. It seems to derive almost completely from intuition, which is very different from player to player, and it's therefore extremely difficult to convince the town with a behavioral case. There's also always the chance you're just wrong about the guy, especially if you've never played with him before. Psychological guidelines simply don't apply to everyone. I think it's seldom easy for a town to correctly lynch scum on purely behavioral reasoning, probably almost only happens in the case of serious blunders.
Well, what do you think?-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Wow, blatant advertising is more useful than I thought...
That's exactly what I originally said, but this thread is mith-approved.Fuldu wrote:I think that if you're prefacing a thread with "This issue of my game philosophy is being debated in quite a few games of mine atm," then it probably constitutes game-relevant discussion and should be pushed off until after those games are completed.
Sure thing. Note that actual plays fit in both categories.Mr. Stoofer wrote:Can you define "Logical Scumhunting" and "Behavioural Scumhunting" for me?
Logic - the reasoning behind plays.
LSHing - hunting based on faulty logic/awkward logical patters.
Behavior - everything that isn't logic.
BSHing - hunting based on gut/intuition/whatever, which is based on behavior.
That'd mean giving up causing the town to mislynch in favor of looking innocent, to an extent.GL wrote:As scum, I think it is generally unwise to use faulty logic (aka logical fallacies) to lead the town astray
GL wrote:Good scum groups should be able to combine these approaches.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.
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.GL wrote:Is the person more likely to use logical fallacies or gentle nudging as scum?
Why would anyone ever do that?GL wrote:Does a certain player never vote for a certain other player?
Town and scum have the same average intelligence. Scum sortaFiasco wrote:Townies use plenty of bad logic, perhaps more than scum.haveto 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.
If that's the case, why not just random lynch and wait for the cop to save your sorry asses?Fiasco wrote: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.
Nothing, which is why I said I'm not completely discounting BSHing by any means. I'm just trying to explain why I think it wise to relay more heavily on LSHing.Mr. Stoofer wrote:Er, what's wrong with using both?
Of course they're not infallible, but you have to realy onFiasco wrote: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).somethingother than random lynching/power roles to get you through the days and there aren't any other options.
This thread only discusses subjective reasoning, though.GL wrote: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.
Thank you for your blazing insight.Twito wrote:The way RR does it is the wrong way and the way Twito does it is the right way. 'Nuf said.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
I disagree, they can certainly be judged to some (pretty high imo) extent.GL wrote:Speculation and subjective opinions can't just get called out. The only way you can be 'caught' with those is by ending up wrong.
What I'm saying is that scumGL wrote: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.in generalare more likely to go with bad logic than town. Busing can be recognized for what it is when based on shaky logic. Scum who decide to completely sacrifice mislynching in favor of looking innocent and manage to use good logic in a consistent manner are likely to make it to the end game alone, at which point they'll hopefully be pegged by some power role. And even if they don't, it's still far from a guaranteed win.
The sole purpose of this threadGL wrote:The catch, though, is that the scum acting town are very hard to call out without using subjective reasoning yourself.isto discuss subjective reasoning.
Contradictory much?GL wrote: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.
So that person is their scumbuddy on a regular basis?GL wrote:If that person is their scumbuddy.
Said people are really stupid and hurt every town they're in.GL wrote:It does sound stupid, but people actually do so on a rather regular basis.
I never said my method was infallible or workable by some equasion. The only way to tell other's "level" of logic is to judge it subjetively yourself. Clever scum can make that really, really hard. I do consider this the best method in the long run, though.GL wrote: 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.
So you basically agree, but also think you should explain your own logic to the best of your ability, which I also agree with. Why not always right away, though?Yosarian2 wrote:About the initial question; if you're town, and you can, it's usually better to put together a logical case against someone then not, although not always right away. It's better to lay out in great detail why you think the person's scum; that way, you might convince others, or others might be able to convince you you're wrong (which is always a possibility), and it also helps everyone else see what you're thinking which hopefully will help them see that you are pro-town
I never said you shouldn't, just that logic is generally better.Yosarian2 wrote:On the other hand, that's not always an option, and you should listen to your hunches and gut feelings, especally on day 1.
I actually read the original Kingmaker and was pretty sure you were scum from like early day 2, you I'll remember that.Yosarian2 wrote: That is, unless you're one of those people that always seems to have a "hunch" that I'm scum for no real reason, then you should ignore it.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Are youFiasco wrote:Instead of saying looking at voting and speaking patterns "doesn't work", I guess I should have said "doesn't work well enough to do much more than compensate for the advantage over random lynching that scum gain through their bandwagon manipulations". That does make a difference.seriouslyadvocating comletely random lynching?
Claiming is a last resort to avoid a lynch. People shouldn't be forced to resort to that unless there's a strong logical/behavioral case against them.Fiasco wrote:It's not the game design, it's just that in my experience people are much dumber about claiming than they are about voting/speaking. For example, they'll state the wrong number of night targets or claim something that contradicts the flavor.
You're missing my point. Scum don't knowingly use crap logic or anything, but their lynching targets are biased so they tend to compromise it.Fiasco wrote:BTW, Rabbit, I've never knowingly used bad logic as scum. I don't know if townie logic is worse than scum logic, but if it is, it's because scum are more careful.
Said people are really selfish and hurt the game in general.Fiasco wrote:I suspect some people behave scummy when they're town just so they seem less scummy when they're actually scum. I suspect this explains part of the lurking behavior on this site.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
MBL - Your post basically puts a lot of variations into the equasion. While I can try to incorporate each and every one into my theory, I'd rather not atm. You haven't commented on my actual point, though.
What's Perry Masons?MBL wrote:You can pull Perry Masons and lay traps for your enemies.
While I splice my posts with lots of sarcasm and generally try to take a light approach to make the game funner, I think everyone should play to win.MBL wrote:And of course, since no one's getting paid for winning or losing, the only thing that really matters is that you're having fun doing it. So use your own style.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
But if neither LSHing nor BSHing work, what exactly do you suggest to do other than relay on power roles?Fiasco wrote:No, I'm not advocating that at all.
You implied theFiasco wrote:Mostly right; how does that contradict anything I said?onlyway to tell alignments is to judge claims, I'm saying claims are just a last resort and you shouldn't get to a point when you're able to judge them unless you had a pretty strong case in the first place.
Fiasco wrote:Their lynching targets don't have to be biased; they bus each other sometimes.Sometimesis the key word here, and I like the idea of forcing scum to bus each other more often. Less bad guys that way.
I'd use a stronger word than "slightly", but that's a stupid argument I don't want to get into. The important thing is that their bias effects their logic.Fiasco wrote:Even if they don't, the bias only forces them to use slightly worse logic.
But yourFiasco wrote:My gut feeling is town logic isn't better than scum logic on average, but I don't know.logicjust told you it is, and I just showed why it's better than your gut.
That's exactly why I try to argue with people a lot - gets them to post more content and gives them many and more chances to screw up.Fiasco wrote:I guess this sort of analysis would work better if people posted more content. How am I supposed to judge scumminess from, for example, one random vote, three off-topic comments, and three on-topic oneliners?-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Suppose you do have this incredible gut, how do you convice the town to follow you on a gut attack?Zidaras wrote:I usually use my gut. Instinct is great. After a while, you get an amazing instinct for Mafia.
If that was true, random lynching would be the way to go. One way can be more efficient than another, and you haven't really commented on my main point yet.Zindaras wrote:There is no one way to catch scum. It is the goal (catching scum), not the way you do it that's important.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
MBL wrote:Logical analysis is 100% subject to WIFOM if you try to analyze it. As an example, let's say my two scumpartners in a Mountainous game play a sketchy d1 and d2. I'm quick to call them on it, they get lynched, and I look like a hero and super-pro-town player. For the rest of the game, I focus on making terse, logical statements that are irrefutable. How are you going to catch me?Ifyou manage to pull off such a thing, and in the vast majority of games that won't happen, the town will hopefully have at least 2 other guys about as "confirmed" as you. It wouldthenbe time to reread the thread and look for the kind of "subtle, situational scumtells" you talk about in your second paragraph.
Again, I'm not discounting BSHing by any means. I'm just trying to set up priorities.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
You're just lisiting some good players who do well at each method, that doesn't really say much. High playskill helps catch mafia on a more regular basis, obviously. I never said mine was the only viable course of action.IH wrote:Take Zindie and Pooky for example. I find them using gut much more than most. They are usually pretty succesful at catching scum (most of the time).
Take Seol and MBL also. They usually are more along the lines at taking people's logical fallacies to the max and scrutinizing peoples posts. It works pretty good also.
I came up with a pretty simple logic for why LSHing is somewhat inherently better than BSHing (just realized this could be read as bullshitting, and I want to be the first to claim to joke ), and I'd appreciate if in future responses people would try stating their opinions on what I'm actually saying rather than add more variables to the equation. I know I'm oversimplifying things, but simplification is the best way to judge logic systems.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
What makes you think this isn't exactly what I'm doing?CES wrote:And I'm saying your priority should be finding scum.
I would never, ever do that. I would view his case as somewhat inherently inferior to any LSHing cases, and since it's much harder to convince people with BSHing cases anyways it's very unlikely I'd be convinced unless some goon just fucked up bigtime, though.IH wrote:QFT. Probably if someone was attacking someone else in a game about "HEY YOU'RE BSHing, You shouldn't be doing that!" I'd vote them for trying to cast suspicion on them for craplogic.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
I happen to have heard this directly from a philosophy proffesor, so you'd do well to elaborate.PJ wrote:*smacks*
While you're messing with my definitions pretty well here, this has nothing to do with my actual argument.PJ wrote:Firstly, you are using the same "goal" (thinking/acting pro-town) as both a logical play and a behavioral play. But "thinking pro-town" is a behavioral tendency which can thereby affect their logic, so I disagree that it is a "logical goal".
ThatPJ wrote: Looking for underlying motives for why somebody says something or pushes on somebody is central to gut.isgut.
All 4 are correct, of course, but I still find my way of thinking superior in the long run and none of these downirght contradict it.PJ wrote:1.) Gut can be [unwittingly] founded in logic.
2.) Logic can be [unwittingly] founded on gut.
3.) Townspeople also make logical mistakes.
4.) Scum also can make logical arguments: simply because somebody is "logical" at all times, it does not make them town, which is what your stance seems to advocate.
Who exactly is he, incidentally?PJ wrote:Also, damn that Perry Mason.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
While you may very well be right here, my experienced friend, I don't see how it stops you from totally pwning my actual logic just for argument's sake. Nobody else has yet to do that, actually, so I think there's this tiny chance I may be on to something here.Thok wrote:RR-Talk to me when you've finished 10-20 games.
Seriously, you're making fairly big assumptions/declarations without the experience to back them up.
While I only happen to know one, he's a really cool guy and I trust him completely.IH wrote:No offense intended to you Philosophy professors.
I see, you're talking trojan horses and such. Now that I think of it, I definitely agree.Yos wrote:Well, if I really think someone is scum, I won't always explain why right away; sometimes I can get different reactions, or see who defends the person or who follows my lead, or just because sometimes an argument is more persuasive if given in parts.
But yeah, I basically agree. That being said, gut and logic should follow each other; if your gut is telling you someone is scum, you should go back and try to figure out why.
Of course.Yos wrote:Sometimes, but logic only gets you so far.
Thoks of the world: before condescending my newbishness, you should probably note that Yos and myself seem somewhat in agreement atm.
Glork wrote:
Though I haven't done it on MafiaScum, I have posted "Daykill: <<PLAYER>>" without actually having a Daykill, only to have them complain and say something like "Go Mafia!"
That may have been one of my proudeset moments playing Mafia ever.
This makes me see a certain recent play in a somewhat different light, btw.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
While I admit to finding you somewhat patronizing before, its always nice to be so completely disproven.Thok wrote:It's not worth my time for me to analyze your logic in this post. I have various things I'd prefer to do.
I'll again remind you that Yos and myself seem to be in somewhat of an agreement. Also, as "EmpTyger 2.0", you may want to take me a bit more seriously.Thok wrote: Especially since I believe that you'll reconsider once you see the impact of your play in various games.
While I haven't yet, not here, I'm suddenly having strong flashbacks of silly adults telling me I can't possibly watch R-Rated films at age 12. They were just as wrong.Thok wrote:(Have you even finished a game here yet?)
I disagree. I happen to think a strategy thread that made it to 3 pages this quickly definitely makes some interesting points, and whileThok wrote:I suspect that there are a significant number of people for whom this paragraph is true.someothers may share your admirable approach, I highly doubt the only reason I haven't been pwnd yet is that this is a newbie hating community (which I'm not saying it is, since I'm getting a lot of helpful responses from the such of PJ and Yos).
This happens to beThok wrote:I do think this is useful thread, since there is a place to analyze intuitive versus logical playstyles. But you are using this thread as a soapbox to push your point of viewmythread, and I believe myself to have a perfect right to "soapbox" my logic until someone finds the common decency to pwn me.
I just don't see how the fact I also want my own logic answered makes you think I'm can't possibly be trying to achieve other goals as well.Thok wrote:...rather than trying to logically understand why people use various methods, how one can further develop logical or intuitive skills, or how one can try to manipulate protown players who focus solely on logic or behavior
Edit: the "my thread!!1" part is complete and utter BS and I'd like to congratulate Thok for annoying me enough to make me lose my judgement skills so completely.Last edited by Raging Rabbit on Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
PJ, first of all, I honestly like your style. It feels like the "argument club" I never got to be in since Israel happens to suck.
Appeal to Knowledge in Logic. I never ever said it makes me right, I just want someone to finally pwn my logic. In fact, I'd like to personally invite you to do just that.PJ wrote:Appeal to Silence.
Simply because nobody has "pwned your logic" doesn't make it right.
This statement is just like religious extremists arguing with science on the basis of discrediting sensory input/the induction principle. While it can't theoritically be argued with, it's obviously completely besides the point and I suspect you knew that.PJ wrote:Especially seeing as you are essentially requiring people to use LOGIC to combat your points. You can always just say "Aha! But you're using a logic against me, so you must (on some level) agree!"
I see.PJ wrote:Appeal to Irrelevant Authority.
blah blah blahAdvanced Logic Course!!1
I unfortunately have only so far gotten to take the Basic Logic Course, so you may consider actually trying to explain yourself rather than argue whose got the bigger dick.
Of course, but Thok is to blame for that one by completely and utterly appealing to his own authority. I just answered one demagogic argument with an equally good one.PJ wrote:Appeal to Authority.
Well, I'll leave it to Yos himself to actually answer this.PJ wrote:Furthermore, I think Yos2 is more advocating that both serve their own purposes, and that one is not inherently better than the other, which does go against your position, rather than supporting it.
Appeal to Ants. While I yet again agree with your saying there may be exceptions, the key word here isPJ wrote:A. Behavioral tendencies may (and you cannot effectively argue otherwise) trump "logical goals", despite the fact (according to you) there are "fewer" of them.
For example, you might have 2 Red Ants up against 1 Anteater. More does not necessarily mean superiority. Appeal to Numbers.may. I'm trying to talk about averages in the very long run here.
I read that sentence 3 times and still don't really understand what you're trying to say. Please rephrase.PJ wrote:Trying to think pro-town as scum is a behavioral clue to hone in on (which may affect logic) when scum-hunting.
Appeal to Exotic Diseases. Since this is really important to me, I urge you to reconsider. (Honestly though, please respond. I'll really appreciate it.)PJ wrote:I won't be responding after this. It's likely bad for my health.
Edit:while still somewhat amusing imho, this comment iswaytoo offensive for no good reason. PJ, I sincerely apologize.Last edited by Raging Rabbit on Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:28 am, edited 1 time in total.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Appeal to... Nah, just general misinfomation. Since you never ever told me your reasons for cosidering me "EmpTyger 2.0" in the past, one has to wonder just how was I supposed to know that?Thok wrote:I suggested that for your tendancy to have really long posts and your stubbornness. Also, I can take you as seriously as I choose to, indepedent of what I think of EmpTyger. You are similar, but definately not identical. Appeal to stretched analogy?
A'ight, I'll clarify. I agree with almost every comment made by Yos in this thread, and don't think any of them conflict with my basic logic at all. He's free to disagree, of course.Thok wrote:(Also, the Yos comment is an appeal to a person who it's been pointed out doesn't really agree with you.)
That's exactly like telling the 12 year old to wait until he's a "responsible adult".Wait until the games are actually over to see if I am wrong.
I seem to recall my very first post using the vague expressionYour appeal to logic suggets you are using the scientific method.philoshopy, though. My PJ analogy has about as much to do with the actual topic as Fire Ants.
Insead of just going along with you here and getting PJ all annoyed again, APPEAL TO AUTHORITY.Thok wrote:Which means you use experiments to check your theories, and reassess given the experimental data. Each mafia game can be thought of an experiment to check if your playstyle is working. If your theory is wrong, you'll see it when you keep trying to lynch protown people rather than scum.
I'm trying to have a phyloshopical discussion here, and while previous experience is definitely an asset it also clearly isn't a must. I believe some really experienced, high caliber people here has yet to comment on my actuallogic, for exmaple, depite wasting quie a lot of time they claim to not have on somewhat empty posts.
Your point being?Thok wrote:A significant number of people aren't posting in the thread. Significant does not equal all.
See my earlier response to PJ, only I suspect he was only trying to tackle me by the wiseass approach while you acutally mean that.Thok wrote:...especially when gut tells us you are wrong.
My main purpose in starting this thread is to get people to pwn my logic. Hasn't really happen yet, and I want as many as possible to either agree with me or "give up". While I have no qualms with others using this thread for their own purposes, I believe I'm perfectly within my rights to insist I get what I humbly consider a proper response.Thok wrote:You started the thread. That doesn't mean you get to control it. If I choose to start talking with PJ about the appropriate species and weight of trout that would be most effective to slap you with, we can do it.
Moreover, I think by trying to dictate things, you discourage those who disagree with you from posting; sure they might fight with you for a little, but then they'll decide to ignore you.
The main purpose of this thread is for people to show me what's wrong with this one viewpoint, so you're technically right.Thok wrote:It's not because you want your logic answered, as much as that you are focused on one specific viewpoint and come off as not wanting to expand the thread past that one viewpoint.
Edit:I was again being generally too offensive, but unlike PJ, Thok totally had it coming.Last edited by Raging Rabbit on Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:30 am, edited 3 times in total.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
While I don't know what a Rainbow Trout is, you're actually making an effort to argue with me (though I suspect you didn't explain yourself to the fullest in your 4h relevant point, and the earlier parts were mostly an "Advanced Logic Class!!1" attempt at dissing me), while Thok is just acting all self important. I therefore appreciate your comments a whole lot more.petroleumjelly wrote:Update: Thok and I have agreed upon Rainbow Trout. The weight of said trout, however, is yet to be decided.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
You're right, I'm sorry, was annoyed with Thok.Seol wrote:the purpose of threads is discussion. if it's an ego-trip to push your own agenda and batter anyone who disagrees with increasingly long posts that just become tedious to reply to, then it's not discussion - ie this is a bad thread.
My own personal objective was to get people to pwn my logic though, and thus far I mostly have what I consider to be Yos more or less agreeing, PJ's 4th point which I don't really get, and loads of other geuninely interesting general advice.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
If people geuinely just aren't interested in replying to what was my original intent, you're of course welcome to have a general strtategy discussion in which I'll be gald to participate.
I honetly apologize for my aggressive earlier comments, I was angry at Thok for condensending me, which generally annoys me more than anything else in the world probably. I suspect the highly cynical tone of my response to PJ was an unconsious attempt to get him to reply more, and I'd again like to politely request him to further explain his earlier 4th point which is of great interest to me. Once again, I appreciate everyone's (save Thok's) cooperation and am sorry for getting carried away in my general resentment for patronizing tones.
EDIT: I obviouly realize scum will be using this as an OMG SECRET WEAPON against me in future games, I'll work on building more of a protective shell there. If you ever want me to go for your throats in OT discussions, though, write posts like these:
Thok wrote:RR-Talk to me when you've finished 10-20 games.
Seriously, you're making fairly big assumptions/declarations without the experience to back them up.
I lost control and I'm honestly sorry. I'll try to never let this happen again, though the best way to make sure of that is for no one to post stuff like that at me ever again. I really don't want this thread to suffer, you should coninue discussing even if you don't care for my original question.Thok wrote:It's not worth my time for me to analyze your logic in this post.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Right. Calm, now. Thanks for your time, mith.
I'm trying to confirm that it doesn't in ways you already know about, but otherwise definitely not.mith wrote:What I intended to approve was the "logical vs. behavioral scumhunting" discussion, not it's application to specific games. I didn't make myself particularly clear. As far as I can tell, this thread hasn't crossed the line to discussing ongoing games, but if it does, mith-approval or no, the thread will be closed.
I haven't, but I really feel the coflicting interests I've been trying to focus on has some level of truth in it. IMVHO, I haven't been proven wrong yet, though PJ seemed to haved an intreresting point I don't yet fully understand.mith wrote:Right from the start, your argument is based on opinion and speculation, not on evidence and logic. Unless you have done some sort of sophisticated research project on the effectiveness of behavioral scumhunting, this doesn't qualify as a logical argument at all.
I disagree. Thok was basically discounting everything I said not becuase of it's pwnibility, but becausemith wrote:This is essentially what Thok was getting at, I think. I agree with him that you will have... if not a different viewpoint at least a more complete one, when you have been playing longer.Isaid it and I'm obviously "not worth his time". And I believe I already said that my opinion may very well change in the future, in fact I honestly still half expect someone to prove me wrong in a way I'll accept (I'm definitely able to deal with being wrong, would've never opened this thread otherwise).
From your own choice of words, the difference should be very clear. Sarcasm isn't meant to be insulting, and while I'm often misinterperted I never ever go for that intenionally. You could say that, in a way, I'm sarcastically imitating the thing I hate the most. I'm a very complex personality, I know...mith wrote:(Somewhat offtopic, but his choice of acondescendingtone is really no different than your choice of asarcasticone.)
As I said in the past, PJ's 4th point was the only relevant one and I personally consider his 3 others a somewhat poor assualt (I wasn't guilty of the first one, he himself used the second one in his attacking me on it and Thok was guilty of appealing to his own high authority). That 4th point might've been total pwnage, I'll only be able to tell once I actually know the full extent of what he was trying to say.mith wrote:For what it's worth, though, what logic there is to pwn has pretty much already been pwned by pj. Perhaps the wiki would be a good starting place if you aren't familiar with logical fallacies.
I'm perfectly familiar with all the wiki fallacies and quite a few more. While I'm admittedly not an Advanced Logic Course graduate, I did confess to having friends in rather high places who I believe know a bit more about said fallacies then even the likes of PJ (though he'll surely be accussing me of demagogy again here).
Antrax wrote:You know, I'm starting to think I play this game differently. Both you, IS and mith saw that I'm claiming cop and were so sure of yourselves that you just didn't care. I used to think IS was reckless, but so far it seems I'm the weirdo here for playing safely. I don't get it.
Point taken.
Again, I don't want this thread to burn for me getting really annoyed at Thok and taking some of it out on PJ's first 3 points in my response to him. While I'd still like to be pwned, I also want this thread to continue living on it's own behalf and if other people aren't interested in discussing that, that's fine with me. The one thing Thok was right about, but I was blinded by rage and only understood Seol's later post - mith owns mafiascum. I'm not king of this thread or anything, do as you like with it.
Peace and harmony to all living things. 8)
Edit:mith m'boy, if you ever get to read this, could you link me the said minivitational please?Last edited by Raging Rabbit on Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
What I humbly tried to show in this thread in why I believe thatMBL wrote:If you replace "stupid" with "annoying", you'll arrive at a similarly incorrect conclusion. Players who use poor or zero logic are nearly as likely to be town as scumnearlyto be a very meaningful word, and perhaps the best way of catching scum in this game of very limited information.
Or at least just as likely, yes.MBL wrote:and players who exhibit terrible manners are slightly more likely to be town.
MBL wrote:Extensive experience as an FBI profiler teaches one that condescending tone accompanied by excessive use of "I", "me" and "my" bears a 57.4% correlation to an archetype of either Serial Killer, Troll or Politician. Two of which can and should be safely voted for on sight.
I now see why Thok is a disgrace to SKs everywhere. He's way too obvious.
Its just as annoying to the 12 year old, though, and just as likely to only annoy him further. Why anyone would respond like that to my general curiosity and good intentions is a great mystery to me.Adele wrote:Actually, it's not. The twelve-year-old has to wait, what, ten years? Whereas you'd have to wait a few months (and experience really is relevant, sorry but it is).
<3Adele wrote:Please stop saying "pwn", this is not a Halo2 tournie
I totally get that now, but this thread was somewhat intended to be just that. While I have no qualms with people explaining their general approach here, I'd like it if someone could find it in his heart to "pwn" my logic, even if said someone just really wants me to stfu.Adele wrote:And: this is not an adversarial debate forum. There are advesarial (I'm right/you're wrong) arguments in here, of course, but when discussing the games, people tend to have a more exploratory and discovery-based attitude here. "A is better than B prove me wrong" is not the format that they usually take place.
See, for example, Stoofer's "Bah" thread. I expressed surprise as disapproval in one of his games, so he asked the community what their thoughts were, and we all learned something. That's the usual template; people don't generally get "pwned" in mafia discussion threads (that's what general discussion's for!) but each thread is somehow educational and they very often raise completely new thoughts/ideas.
It's very groovy.
I just realized the Memento guy probably has the potential of being the best scum ever (SK, really).Patrick wrote:Any tips on how to manage this? Do you do this in larger games, or can you really manage to forget who your scumbuddies are in smaller games when there's only one or two of them?
Heh, you do kinda sound like me. Cool. I also sympathaize with your title to a degree you can't possibly imagine.EmpTyger wrote:Stoofer in [7] had it right, imho: the idea that this is an either/or question is silly. Preferring what our raging friend is calling Logical to Behavioral is well and good in a vacuum, but in practice you have to catch the guilty- and clear the innocent- with the evidence you have, not the evidence you’d rather have. (Appeal to, uh, Rumsfeld.)
While Stoof had it perfectly right, I suppose this is a "silly" discussion since I honestly do want to discuss my very abstract logic in a vaccum. My intentions are purely philoshopical, which is why I've been telling anyone who gave me examples to where my approach doesn't apply that he's being irrelevant. I thought peole would understand I aimed for complete abstractism, and was obviously wrong. I'm glad you agree with my logic in a vaccum (honesly though, is there anyway to discuss the game without referencing anyactualgames thatisn'ta vaccum?), and I'm glad Yos seems to agree as well. I urge PJ to please pwn my logic in a complete vaccum, if he can still think of a way.
The fact that Thok was being a pretensious meanie and really managed to annoy me here has a grand total of nothing to do with whether or not I'm right. You seem to be agreeing with me that I'm right in a vaccum, though, and if there's anything else in my posts you disagree with I strongly advise you to give in to temptation. I get the feeling I'll enjoy talking to a much more experienced guy who seems to think a lot like myself.RagingRabbit 0.5 wrote:Which is not to say I’m not sorely tempted to debate you just to provide Thok the spectacle.Last edited by Raging Rabbit on Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
*Important note* to anyone who didn't feel like reading my last post too closely, what I was trying to start here is a purely philosophical debate. The extent to which my logic being correct should change my actual approach to the game acompletely seperate subjectto be discussed later, but first I'd like to hear your opinion on whether or not I have a point in a*complete vaccum*.You may also explain your general opinion if you don't feel like arguing with silly wabbits, of course. */Important Note*
Mert, first of all, I personally see your comment as the most helpful one I got to date. Thanks.
This really caught my eye, and I'd love to discuss this more. Could you explain more on his reasoning for making that his "only" way of judging the winner, both in Mafia and in Poker? Is there no element of "quality" in the different levels of thinking?Mert wrote:There is a poker theorecian called David Sklansky who wrote in one of his books that the poker player who will consistently win the most is the one that thinks on a 'higher' level than his opponent. I'll expand on this using Mafia terms rather than poker ones, but the corrolation should be relatively obvious.
Level One Thinking - What is my role? How will I play this role?
Level Two Thinking - What is my role and what role do I think he has?
Level Three Thinking - What is my role, what role do I think he has and what role do I think he thinks I have?
Level Four Thinking - What is my role, what role do I think he has, what role do I think he thinks I have and what role do I think he thinks I think he has?
Ad infinitum.
I believe my so far very basic logic system can be incorporated into the higher levels, but would like to see whether or not it gets pwnd before wasting any further effort on it.Mert wrote:Logic, as you define it would fall roughly into Level Two thinking, possibly slightly Level Three. It would be about knowing your role and working out, from "tells" what you think your opponent has - a logical deduction based on their actions.
That may very well be so, I confess to be somewhat inferior to most other repliers here because of my lack of experience. I again want to stress I was trying to talk aboutMert wrote:The thing is (and I think this is why you maybe found Thok so condescending) is that an experienced player would be thinking (possibly unknowingly or subconsciously) on a higher level, not only using logic to find out what they think you are but also conveying themselves in a way they believe you will find to be a certain role whilst simultaneously wondering what role you think you are portraying to him.
That experience and depth of thinking would look, to the lay-person, as "going on gut feeling", but could well be a fabulous, subconscious ball of logic that your brain hasn't been trained enough (through experience) to unravel.
Now I'm certainly not saying you're stupid here or anything (far from it), but I'm just saying that experience counts for logic that is above a less experienced person's understanding of it, which makes it appear random or based on gut feeling to those with less experience.complete vaccums, though.
I find Thok condescending not only for taking this "I'm a higher thinker! Bow down to me!" thing to extreme heights, but also for phrasing himself in a way I can only define as best method of annoying RR ever. While I'm very sorry for losing my balance, I still believe myself perfectly in the right for finding his actions incredibly annoying.
While I totally <3 you for making such a helpful comment, I'd really like you the explain that Sklansky guy more please.Mert wrote:I hope I've made sense here, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me but when I read Sklansky's passage I immediately saw parallels with Mafia and this seems about as good a time as any to share them.
Yay!Mert wrote:On an entirely unrelated note, the phrase "Appeal to Ants" genuinely made me laugh out loud
I'd like to use this opportunity tooffiaclly apologize to PJ. While I still disagree with his first 3 points, I was being needlessly resentful to him on acount of my anger with Thok. PJ, it'll hopefully never repeat itself, I honestly like your posting style and would honestly like you to expand on your 4th point please. Thanks.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
After rereading the last page to add a late disclaimer of sorts to my earlier misguided posts, I just realized no one has yet to explain to this stupid noob exactly what does "Perry Masons" mean. Could someone please open my eyes?Last edited by Raging Rabbit on Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Is it a general social trend to know wikipedia by heart in the US? That's good to know...Mert wrote:Do they not have Wikipedia either?
(I probably should've searched the MS wiki and then maybe I'd have figured to search the real one, but I'm afraid I'm not cosious enough of the wiki's usefulness for some reason).
*checking*
80novels?! Damn, how did I manage to miss the guy so completely?
I will never, ever forgive you for this.Mert wrote:By the way, I do plan to reply to your reply to me, but it might not be until tomorrow as I'm off to bed soon methinks.
(*sarcasm, and this is the last time I'm actually bothering with this*)-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Scandinavians are da coolest, along with Brits (and Scottsmen, of course. Just listening to the accents in Trainspotting makes me go all warm inside. Irish as well. You get my drift).Cheesefan wrote:Nah. If you want cool go over to Scandinavia or Holland.
Us brits just have cool accents.
While the Dutch are very fine n' all, being a Dutch citizen myself I'd feel agocentric for worshipping them.Last edited by Raging Rabbit on Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
I probably misuderstood then, I thought you were talking about pure gut - i.e "I've just got the mad nagging feeling X's scum".Zindaras wrote:As I said, that's where the logic comes in.
Once again, my only intention is to speakZindaras wrote:In general, maybe, but it's all about specific cases.in general. I'm not trying to discredit BHSing by any means.
See first post.Zindaras wrote:Main point?
Of course. What's wrong with some purely philosophical discussion about the most theoritcally effiecient one, though? I'm not exactly sure how this should influence my actual strategies, and really don't wanna think about it too much until I'm sure enough in the basic logic.Zindaras wrote:It's not how you catch the scum that matters, as I said. It's that you do.
My grandfather died serving Holland in WW2, so you should really root for me in any future arguments to repay your countries debt.Zidaras wrote:You're Dutch? Amusing.
You know what else we have where I live? MOUNTAINS! OMG, OCCASIONAL CHANGES IN TERRITORRY!!1Zindaras wrote:Your location reminds me of a village near where I live.
To sum it up, I never ever said this wasn't true and it's not what I'm trying to figure out.Zindaras wrote:There is no one way to catch scum. Some scum can be caught by behavioural tells, some scum can be caught by logic.
Your a servant of capitalism and general bad taste in cinema (and hopefully used to my puns by now).Adele wrote:I work at Blockbusters
Anyway, your general argument is somewhat valid, and as I said I'm not exactly sure what to do with my logic even once I'm sure it's unpwnable. Still, your way of thinking basically discredits any "meaningless" philoshopical discussion, and that's no fun imho. If you're not interested, no one's forcing you to be. I'm certainly not trying to get anyone to see the light and join the Bunny Aliance Of Logical Thinking or somethin'.
I somewhat disagree about Freud as well, but arguing with you on that will inevitably end in getting my but kicked since you know all the facts that supports your POV while I do not.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Not too tricky. You'll again be suspected but this time for not dying and hopefully end up lynched.Yos wrote:Not in a mountainas game; in a vanillia mafia game, confirmed-ish townies end up dead fast.
That's because it isn't my premise. I'm saying because of the conflicting interests in scum logic, it's on average somewhat more effiecient than BSHing. Say you take a million purely logical lynches and a million purely behavioral (I know it doesn't work that way, this isYos wrote:To be clear, I don't agree with your premise that logical deductions arealwaysbetter then gut.theoretical), you'll get a higher percentage of correct logical lynches. I'm not that sure of this premise, though, which is why I've been trying to get someone to pwn it for quite a while now. Do you agree with that, incidentally?
(Sorry for making you my authority figure before, I really felt like answering Thok with something other than "logical fallacy!!1".)
While interesting, that's:Yos wrote:In the most general sense, one theory is that the human brain has actually been evolved specifically for the purpose of better communication; better abilites to manipulate others and to tell when others are trying to manipulate you, better ability to cheat and to catch those who cheat, and better ability to lie and to catch liars. A sucesfull liar, cheater, or manipulater will tend to get more resources and better chances at reproduction then others and thus have an evolutionary advantage, while the ability to figure out when people are tryign to lie, cheat, or manipulate you also has an evolutinary advantage for you and for the group as a whole. In other words, your brain's been specicifically designed to notice little signs that a person might not be trustworthy, so you should pay attention to your instints.
1. Like the evilest theory ever (and I'm perfectly familiar with Freud).
2. Finally explains how politicians are chosen nowdays.
I really don't have the brain science knowledge to know what else to make of it, unfurtonately.
Now this makes me honestly curious, since you certainly aren't the first to say this here IIRC. Have you noticed some sort of general patterns in either of your 'dars that always effect your feelings, or do you just go completely arbitarlily for whatever you happen to feel? Any other reason you could possibly think of why you trust to-dar better then scu-dar?Yos wrote:I can't always trust my scum-dar, but I've got a lot of faith in my townie-dar.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
But you were just saying in the later paragraph scum may sometimes get themselves lynched for acting "too pro town". We can keep going round and round here, but the scum's chances of being the lynch are about equal to anyone else's imo.Perhaps, but those kind of arguments rarely lead anywhere. It's basically "We all think you're town, and you're a good player, and you're not dead yet, so you must be scum!" "Or perhaps YOU'RE scum who didn't kill me just so you could make that argument!" Trying to guess why the scum killed certain people can occasioanlly be useful, but it's probably more prone to a rapid decay into WIFOM uselesness then any other source of information the town has.
This is probably the best "irrelevant" explanation for why I'm wrong yet. While it's certainly very convincing, I can't shake the feeling that the fact that in a purely theoretical sense, scumYos wrote:Well, no, not really. "Pure logic" lynches tend to take out the more illogical players more then the most scum at first, then in the second itereration you have to logically take that metagame stuff into account ("but person X is ALWAYS illogical even when town...").
Both have their place. Logic and keeping track of votecounts and such is quite useful for the town, simply because it makes it harder for scum to do whatever they want and forces them to do things like bus their partners in order to look more pro-town, and forcing the scum to act against their own interests helps the town's odds. However, once the scum start doing that, you sometimes have to take the next step and go after people who logically appear to be town. But if you go too far in that direction, then the scum get back to being able to basically do whatever they want and mindlessly bandwagoning townies and getting away with it.
It's a careful balance, and even if you could isolate one mode or the other I don't think it would be helpful; behavioral scumhunting works to some degree BECAUSE other people are doing logical scumhunting, and logical scumhunting works to some degree BECAUSE some other people are more focused on behavioral scumhunting.aremore prone to make logical errors must have some sort of in-game merit, though. It does go a long way towards convincing me that even if I'm basically right, I'll have one heck of a hard time actually figuring out how to implement anything from it.
Fair enough. Even if youYos wrote:(shrug) Decent scum generally hide their tracks and mix their behavior with seemingly pro-town behavior pretty well, so the most I can usually count on my scumdar to say is "that person seems scummier then most", say, a 50/50 chance of being right instead of a 25/75 chance a random lynch might have (and that's on a good day). But if a person really feels pro-town to me, I tend to trust that more, and it's right more often.dohave some general guidlines, now that I think of it, telling them to some noob at a strategy thread where anyone can read them will go a long way towards making them useless.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Ok, I see now. Thanks for the advice.Yos wrote:Basically, you should never attack someone because they appear to be pro-town, that kind of overextended WIFOM stuff is just bad and usually will just make you lynch the most useful good guy in the game and at the same time encourage anti-town behavior. However, in some cases the right move is to attack someone dispite the fact that you have some logical reason to think they're pro-town, because you've got such a strong gut feeling that it over-rides the logic.
It shouldn't be something you do all the time, though; more often then not, if you've got a strong logical reason to think someone's pro-town, they are.
You keep robbing me of my favorite debate topics by insisting to have a degree in them. Die.Adele wrote:Earlier I told you that my degree was Psych major. Not exactly true. I was a Psychology-Philosophy double major (dual honours in the Brit vernacular).
I don't claim to know the definition better than you do (NOT arrogant, see?). I do think that, whatever you want to call it, there's room for the completely abstract discussion I was going for. Call it "Robot Mafia", if you feel like it. Doesn't really matter.What really matters in philosophy is rigourous thinking, and that includes knowing what you're talking about. Human nature, and so human interactions, are not predictable in a vacuum.
That's my claim, anyhow.
CheeseHERETIC wrote:Argument from design makes me chuckle*Lightningbolt*-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Agreed.Zindaras wrote:Well, that may be the reason why you're attacking someone, but saying "I think X is scum" won't get you anywhere. Once you've got a gut feeling on someone, you should be able to go back in thread and build a case on it. If you can't find a case, then your gut may be wrong.
I'm trying to generalize the little bits and pieces I do see, though. I still don't feel my original logic has been pwnd yet.Zindaras wrote:I'm afraid that it's impossible to generalize things like this. Mafia's a game of specifics. Every Mafia is different. What works in one game will fail in another. That's the charm of the game.
1. This is basically true.Zindaras wrote:Because it's impossible to determine the best way to catch scum. You'd have to go through every game and determine how the scum was caught and do a good quantitative analysis. However, that's a boatload of work. What you'll get if you post a thread like this is that everyone is going to post the way that works for them, specifically. And, well, they're all right. You should do it the way that works for you.
2. I wasn't going on comprehensive research which will of course take about forever, I was going for the purely theoritical. Apparantly nobody here is interested in that. Again, though, imho I haven't yet been pwnd.
Yup. Funny story, there. He was taken captive on a Japanese ship along with a bunch of other Dutchmen, which the Americans drowned. Tons of the captives survived, but grandpa Volf, who was amongst the first to jump into the water, was knocked out by a Japanese rescue boat that hit him on the head and drowned. You should thereforeZindaras wrote:He was in the navy, I presume? Because our army didn't do a whole lot.definitelyroot for me in all arguments to make up for his humiliation.
These little bulges in the ground that keep terrain interesting.Zindaras wrote:What are mountains?
LAWL.Fiasco wrote:They're like RR's ego, but smaller and made of rock.
(RR's ego has year-round snow on the base and Martians dancing on the tip. Hezbollah once tried using it as an artillery platform, but found their missiles decayed into elementary particles before hitting the ground.)
Seriously though, since you seem to have read the V-Day thread, you should know I really don't suffer from overconfidence.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
When exactly is that? How can you tell?TIMMAH wrote:I myself find that Behavioral Scumhunting works best because The goal of trying to look protown is much more difficult to do then to think protown, and most scum slip up on it.
Because their endgame goal is for them and their buddies to stay alive. Therefore, their logic is inherently biased.Thesp wrote:Why would they have to? I disagree with this premise
(Thanks for choosing to explain this in a nice tone, btw)Thesp wrote:Logic isn't the reasoning behind plays, it's the justification for plays
While you're right about this (and that's basically what I meant), the two are the same for the uninformed 3rd party. Thereasoningbehind plays is also dependent on alignment, and can only be judged post-game.
The best way to judge logic is to ignore all the confusing little pretty words, and figure out what the other guy's actually saying.Thesp wrote:I have no idea what you mean by this.
Why wouldThesp wrote:The real problem with justification is that people make stuff up all the time in mafia.anypro town player ever want to make anything up?
A'ight, please name a few.Thesp wrote: The most consistent way to find scum, IMHAAO, is to find tendencies which scum exhibit more frequently than townies, and watch for those tendencies in players in the game.
Not really, no. Not all mountains look the same.CES wrote:Are they - are they anything like windmills?-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
If they guy you're voting is your scumbuddy (and assuming your logic is good), by doing that you're basically sacrifcing mislynching in favor of looking innocent. Again, conflicting interests.mole wrote:
Here's where I disagree. How can someone's logic be biased? If I say "I'm gonnaRaging Rabbit wrote:Therefore, their logic is inherently biased.Vote: Player Xbecause he's just bandwagonning without contributing his own thoughts", I could post the same thing whether I'm townie or mafia. Where does the bias come in?-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
The logic the mafiamole wrote:So if the town can, in a logical manner, come to the conclusion that Player X should be lynched, so can the mafia, just as easily.thinkof is by no means biased (other than by their knowledge of others alignment that obviously effects their thinking process whether they wish it to or not), but it's also irrelevant. The logic theystatein game is somewhat biased by their dillema.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Israel is a happy, peaceful place with incredible ethnic diversion. You Dutchmen should all come visit and enjoy the fiery atmosphere.Fiasco wrote:There are spectacular mountains in the Netherlands, but there are also spectacular valleys; it just happens that they're in the same place so they all cancel out.
If AWR is now a modkillable offence, that certainly explains quite a few recent occurrences here.Fiasco wrote:Fishing for a modkill, huh?
Aren't you sorta answering yourself there?Why is a bandwagon that'snot the town's "best lynch"necessarilyimperfect logic?
Note: logic, like basically everything, is relative.-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
Just went over this with Thesp, it's "The justification behind plays".mith wrote:It depends on what you mean by logic.
1. Since honesty is the highest value in RR's Moral System, he happens to say "to be honest" a lot.mith wrote:If I say, for example, "RR said 'to be honest'. Scum are more likely to say 'to be honest'. Therefore, RR is more likely to be scum. Vote: RR", this is fine logically. Such an argument in no way implies that RR is the "objective best lynch", just that RR is the most likely scum in my opinion (whether my real opinion or a fake one presented as scum).
2. Of course it can't be judged objectively. When you're an uninformed party, nothing can. I can subjectively decide on "good logic" and "bad logic", though, and vote for the player whose logic is the worst since he's more likely to be scum according to RR's Dillema ( ).-
-
Raging Rabbit Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: January 18, 2007
While I still beileve myself to have had an interesting point here, recent developments really don't make me feel anything like posting in any threads I'm not required to. If you have any further comments about your personal scumhunting approach, you're perfectly welcome to make them. Otherwise, this thread should whither and die.
This is hopefully my last post here.
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.