Jitsu wrote: But I think the correct townie move in the case where someone shows a different playstyle is to keep an open mind and evaluate the player based on their activities in the current game in light of the meta (don't forget the meta, just try not to let it dominate your scumdar). I think meta is a useful tool, but IMHO, I think that too often players use it to jump to conclusions. "Player X did Y when her meta says she normally does Z! She must be scum!!" What incentive do people have to improve by changing their playstyles or trying different strategies then? I firmly believe that a townie's most important obligation is to help their team win, within the bounds of ethical play.
/agree completely.
The thing about meta is that saying "X does Y as scum, so X must be scum here!" is that it assumes all else is equal - ie. whether or not the person is a power role, what type of power role, how busy the person is in RL (I notice this has a massive affect on my own ability), etc. It's not necessarily comparing apples with apples.
CKD wrote: I hate Day 1s without a Night 0, or maybe I am just insecure about my scum hunting abilities day 1 with little to go on. not sure why the wagon is shifting to Shanba if he is not even posting at this site.
It's lurker-pressuring: An exercise in futility designed to make each participant seem as useful as possible whilst ignoring the obvious facts that a person who isn't on-site is not going to be subject to pressure and that, if a lurker does return, it's not a good idea to have their read potentially tainted by pressure.
Jitsu wrote:
I probably didn't explain it very well. Gambit was probably too strong of a word.
I think that sometimes, when someone is pushing a case on you, one way to help disrupt it is to agree with them about something (legitimately or not). For example, you may agree with some of the points against you, if they are valid. If done genuinely as town, it shows you are level-headed and fair, and as scum, I think it might help you look as if you were level-headed and fair.
Either way, I think in some cases, it can throw a bit of an obstacle in the path of the person pushing the case against you. And I think how the person pushing the case gets around that obstacle has the potential to be telling. A desperate scum sensing his/her mislynch prey getting away could be tempted to oversell the case.
Perhaps in this game, we are less likely to have desperate scum (since many of the players here are seasoned veterans), but I think the general observation still holds water.
So, you are suggesting that Cicero may have said that it was a weak town tell in order to show partial agreement as a confounding tactic?
Jitsu wrote:cicero wrote:Jitsu, your posts thus far seem to have a lot of "it could be this" or it "could be that". Would you say that's a fair assessment?
Yes, it is.
First, I have far less experience playing mafia than most other people here, and because of that, I tend to doubt myself, even in cases when I should not. I don't think I have the track record yet to establish confidence in my scumhunting ability. And even then, I will probably remain the "judging" type that weighs evidence carefully and comes to a decision more slowly than others.
Second, my playstyle is to be honest and open, and a bit conservative. If I'm not sure something is scummy, I'll say so. But if I am really sure (which admittedly is rare), I'll attack hard. I don't like to say or imply I'm sure of something when I really am not. By understating my certainty a little bit, I still get my opinons out there and on record to help the town, and I make fewer enemies in the bargain. I've found it's a lot easier to get information from people if they don't perceive you as an enemy.
So far, I think this style has worked well for me.
You play in a very similar fashion to myself: the two points you make here in particular.
That said, I think you need to distinguish between weighing the evidence carefully, and speculation. I can think of a multitude of explanations for many posts, some of which may be scummy, but I don't see any utility in listing those possibilities (as you did). This is especially so given the potentially manipulative effect of only planting scummy possibilities. Also, giving such speculation can't be justified by being "open".
shaft.ed wrote: To unvote at L-3 is a bit strange to me. You know there aren't any wild cards in this game that will come by and hammer out of the ether. Why the concern?
unvote vote: CKD
Why the concern, shaft.ed?
You say the unvote is "a bit strange", but could you flesh out how that oddness translates into scumminess?
Jitsu wrote: Excuse me, but I never said what CKD did was scummy. Why did you come to that conclusion?
I was looking for an explanation why he did what he did and trying to gauge his motives. I did decide to turn up the pressure on him just a notch to see how he would react, because he really hasn't been tested much yet.
He didn't overreact and gave a logical reason why he did what he did, so I find his reaction more likely to be townish.
Cicero has said what I would say re you "not saying it"
In my view, overreaction is, until I see contrary proof, completely independent of alignment. It's a player-based thing.
His reason also wasn't fantastic. Basically saying: "I wasn't comfortable with the pace or the people" is among the first excuses that would come to scum in that situation.
["Jitsu" wrote: I did have concerns, obviously, or I would not have asked the question. But in my mind, being suspicious of someone, and thinking they are scummy are not the same. To me, the former implies that I am still making up my mind about something. The latter implies that I already have, to some degree. If you consider that splitting hairs,
that's your prerogative.
No. It is not "my prerogative" or anybody else's. It's a matter of evaluating your own behaviour, and it's patently evasive to turn it into a matter of personal view.
Distinguishing "scummy" from "suspicious" is splitting hairs. And, from what I've seen here, you appear to be doing so in order to shirk culpability for accusations and insinuations
because you hadn't made your mind up
.
Jitsu wrote: And naturally, I had to keep my opinion of CKD close to my chest, or I would not have been able to trust the answer. I did say that I have an honest and open playstyle, but I'm not above withholding a bit of information to pull a little gambit or set a trap, if I see an opportunity and think it's in the town's interest. That's not a big part of my playstyle, though. I leave the major gambits to the professionals.
I love secret traps. Since you've admitted that you had a trap, and since the moment has passed, how about being open and accountable about your gambit/trap?
